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.
The article was almost surely created through the use of LLMs. There is an ongoing cleanup thread dedicated to the recent edits of the author of this article on the AI cleanup Wikiproject. The user in the meanwhile has been indef blocked in the main namespace for the usage of LLMs and completely blocked some days ago for their daily evasions with TAs. I've already reverted his other edits, what is left are the articles created by him. There are multiple WP:AISIGNS: In the first version created by the author there were a lot of WP:AIFICTREF (broken external links); there are still multiple signs of WP:AILEGACY (for example revealing their close friendship and intellectual exchange or demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of geography and global economic dynamics) that are completely missing in the sources; and finally there are facts that are simply absent in the sources that should reference them, such as the fact that the geographic maps were produced together with Gastaldi or the fact that Ramusio's work influenced the works of de Bry and Purchas (both facts are actually true, but they come from this source and not from the one used in that part of the article, which is this one). According to Copyleaks it was 100% AI-made (whilst according to GPTZero it's a mix of AI- and human-generated text, but I remind that these tools are not always reliable). All in all, I think that's a pretty straightforward violation of WP:NEWLLM and that the best course of action is WP:TNT. --Friniate ✉ 14:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be largely an llm translation from it.wiki including the same references "retrieved" long before the page existed on en.wiki. Incidentally I have noticed that this phenomena is becoming more common - editors add a new page with a large diff which includes references which have been lifted wholesale from another language wiki. Even if they are curating the content, at very least they are not carefully verifying the references. JMWt (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LLM-generated in violation of WP:NOLLM, according to the author’s disclosure on the talk page. The author is experienced and claims to have verified all the sources. Should an exception be made, or should the article be deleted in accordance with the guideline? I2Overcometalk00:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was no absolute prohibition on using LLMs in creating an article at the time I created it. I even posted about it in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 209#AI SEO. I had reviewed all of the text and confirmed all of the citations before moving it into main space. This nomination is trying to apply subsequent changes to the policy retroactively. - Donald Albury01:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some WP:CLOP issues, including but not limited to (I only checked one source):
Caption
Article
Source (the Caljone one)
The specific epithet oligodonta derives from the Greek roots oligo (few) and odonto (teeth), referring to the small number of teeth present in the apical region of each leaflet
The specific epithet is derived from the greek roots oligo (few) and odonto (=teeth), in allusion to the presence of a few teeth in the apical region of each leaflet
Deforested areas of otherwise suitable habitat confirm that the species is in decline
deforested areas of otherwise suitable habitat suggest that the species is declining
Zamia oligodonta is endemic to the department of Risaralda in western Colombia, where it grows in premontane rainforest on the Pacific slope of the Western Cordillera at elevations of 1,500 to 1,800 metres above sea level
Zamia oligodonta is endemic to the department of Risaralda, where it occurs in premontane rain forests (sensu Holdridge 1967) on the Western Cordillera at elevations between 1500 to 1800 m.
Fertile seed strobili at different stages of maturity have been recorded in at least two populations, indicating that sexual reproduction is ongoing
Fertile seed strobili at different stages of maturity have been observed in two populations, indicating that reproduction is occurring normally
NEWLLM still applies here as at the time it prohibits generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch, and the LLM disclosure indicates that was what happened, even if manual editing was done afterwards. JumpytooTalk02:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(plus a change in meaning, "suggest that the species is declining" is not the same thing as "confirm that the species is in decline")
Draftify. I think the option should be left open for someone to perform an AIless rewrite of this article from the available sources if they so wish. Athanelar (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I can see the argument for TNT here, but TNT also clearly states that you don't need to go through AFD to start over on an article and I think that keeping the sources which were checked by a person for reuse in a future article makes sense. The subject itself seems to meet notability requirements so fully deleting the article doesn't make sense to me. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and TNT. We can't have copyvio anywhere on en.wiki. So at very least someone has to sort that out pronto. Then as with almost every other article touched by LLMs, it is a simpler process to start again from scratch than have to waste time going through the content line by line. Stop taking these shortcuts and write your own damn content. JMWt (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I appreciate the transparency -- it's already going above and beyond what most people do -- but the text issues pointed out above are concerning and would be concerning whether the article was AI or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated article, and even if it wasn't, it's an overly-verbose paraphrasing of the blind taste test article, with some wine examples thrown in to puff up the reference list (along with the kind of pointless detail LLMs can't resist, like "blind tasting involves concealing the wine label or bottle shape...this can be achieved by covering bottles with plain paper bags or decanting the wine into neutral containers". And many references are hallucinated: Ref. 20's PMID resolves to a different paper, and Ref. 6 does not at all say what it's cited for. Textbook slop, let's delete it and be done with it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The LLM issues can be resolved by reverting the edits that introduced the LLM edits (so restore this revision or a bit before that: [1]). JumpytooTalk01:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a WP:COI in that the editor of the magazine in question appears to be the person writing the WP page. Also they seem to be relying on an LLM although this would appear to be less of a problem given the above. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions here [2], that's not enough for notability. Most of the sources mention this web magazine, but aren't very detailed. I don't see enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes sufficient coverage for notability? There’s a mention of it in a popular book and documentary of the time and multiple websites and archives. ~2026-20069-11 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
COI issues mean that one almost inevitably thinks that a topic close to you should be a page on en.wiki
LLM issues include introducing errors, but if it is a topic that the person knows better than anyone else, almost by definition they are best placed to curate the LLM output. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : No significant reliable coverage available for this publication on google search. Only available source is the news of their apology on various news media. Other than this, no other coverage. Rht bd (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Salamun Alaikum
I updated the article with some high quality news sources like Daily Star, Prothom Alo and TBS. This news shows that the magazine is notable. Also I added a criticism section for making the article neutral. In future, it will be more updated. Please check the new sources and I request to keep this article.
Thanks but all four sources you added have almost same wording, basically saying the same thing and are based on a press release (their apology) by Chhatra Sangbad. That's not WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She needs to do some work on the article, but she is not finished yet. This is a notable topic with important scientific content. She is still working on it. I don't think deletion is warranted -- this is a new editor learning the ropes on Wikipedia. Give her a chance to sort out the referencing link issues and tone please. A problem with the DOI link does not automatically mean that it was written by AI (although I understand why you would assume that in this age of ChapGPT). This article is part of a course project and I think she will be able to get the article to meet Wikipedia standards. SarahSalal (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is new to Wikipedia to the extent of writing completely unreadable and repetitive content and yet somehow has been able to work out how to reference using refname on the first attempt in a single large diff? That seems highly unlikely. JMWt (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That broken DOI for a paper that has a perfectly serviceable one is a bad sign. While Concordia University does not appear to have an AI policy overall, this could be an ethics violation depending on the rules set by the course instructor [3]. It is, at any rate, bad for the student to upload anything that is WP:G15-eligible like this. That's not the way to learn how to do research. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an LMM article. I am writing it myself. Something went wrong with the referencing format and the links don't work, but I am working on fixing it and all writing is my own. CanadianGreatLakes (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or move back to user space. The best case is that this wasn't ready to be moved into article space. Among other issues, it contains language suited to an essay but not an encyclopedia article (e.g., relationships between Arctic amplification and mid-latitude weather should be continuously monitored). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly likely that an LLM is in use because new editors do not suddenly learn perfect referencing code. Even beyond that, the content is not readable prose. This is not fixable without WP:TNT. JMWt (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking a bit more about this, a novice editor would have to
1. Know to use the reference creator wizard/tool
2. Know that they needed the DOI url to create the properly formatted code
3. Know when and how to use refname
4. Do all of that for multiple different references in a single diff
If the DOI itself is wrong, I think it is unlikely that the tool would work. So in order to get a correctly formatted reference code with the wrong DOI the editor would have to essentially be hand coding the references. And they'd have to be doing that for multiple references, with refnames, in a single diff without mistakes.
I am learning how to do this in Wikiedu. I have taken the courses that were assigned to me in this platform. I am still having trouble figuring out how to properly upload my references. I am working on it now and for the rest of the week. CanadianGreatLakes (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It works when I found the paper on google scholar and added it using visualeditor in my sandbox. So somehow you would have to find a magic DOI that works in the visualeditor cite tool (which isn’t first result I got using google scholar) but doesn’t give a valid DOI url. It could happen but still seems unlikely JMWt (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the editor was using their universities library search tool? That probably linked to the Wiley source which has the broken DOI. JumpytooTalk18:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think the issue with the doi has been adequately explained above and there is no harm if the page is preserved in some way. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEWLLM there are a limited acceptable uses for llms, one of which is to assist with translation following WP:LLMT. This page was created with edits with fairly numbers of large characters which the editor listed as a translation of the Russian. The talk page shows that this was achieved with an llm and there is very little evidence that the translation has sufficient/any substantive human checking. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of LLM per WP:NEWLLM. Exhibit A is the words of the editor who created the page on the talk page: they have described using Claude to "verify the page numbers against the Harrison 2024 text". Clearly no effort has been made to verify this is actually correct, because that would take more time than doing proper referencing in the first place using human facilities to read the page numbers. JMWt (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would also run up against the narrative that AI can do anything and everything in seconds, and we puny humans with our "logic" and "fact checking" are troglodytes by comparison. As for the article, delete. It effectively has only one source, which clearly has not been vetted. If the creator cares enough, let them spend all the time they saved with AI fixing the article properly. If not, we don't need it anyway.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all LLM-generated content and replaced it with a human-written article, about a book that I consider obviously notable (hundreds of scholarly articles about it). If you are willing to withdraw your delete !vote (since I believe your concerns have been addressed), this AfD can be speedy-closed. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I checked the first two footnotes, which probably constitute a copyright violation. The article,
Les amours de Psyché et de Cupidon (The Loves of Psyche and Cupid) is a 1669 prose and verse work by the French author Jean de La Fontaine.[1] It is his longest single work, extending to nearly 140 pages in the standard Bibliothèque de la Pléiade edition.[1] The text is predominantly in prose but is framed as a prosimetric composition containing a number of inserted poems.[2]
The source,
Les Amours de Psyché et de Cupidon (‘The Loves of Psyche and Cupid’, hereafter LAPC) by Jean de La Fontaine (1621–95), best known for his Aesopic verse fables, is his longest single work, extending to nearly 140 pages in the standard Pléiade edition, and one of his few extensive compositions predominantly in prose, though its prosimetric frame contains a number of inserted poems.
Keep, and stubify to address copyright violations. This is obviously a notable book: with more than a thousand hits in google scholar, I immediately see dozens that satisfy WP:NBOOK. I am not persuaded AfD was the correct venue to address this problem, since the nomination does not address notability or give evidence of a WP:BEFORE. It could have been stubified as normal editing. Also, in the author's mild defence, it arguably did not contravene WP:NEWLLM at the time it was created, since at that time the guideline forbade creating articles "from scratch", and the Talk page comments do assert editing and human review in addition to the Claude review. Since copyright violations are urgent, I will stubify and revdel now. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is obviously contradictory - the editor asserts human review.. but Claude introduced urgent copyright violation.
It's not enough and can never be enough because for every error that a careful and competent editor finds and corrects, the llm is likely the have introduced another 10.
Other editors need to go through this line by line and claim by claim, the llm has generated extra work. Yes, a human could have created mess like this but no they usually don't write content that looks superficially like normal WP coding and referencing in one large diff. We have enough problems already without the existential threat to this encyclopedia of machine written content. JMWt (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I can see that your stubifying has required some effort and I thank you for doing that. A discussion about a stub written by a human is a different question than a page mostly written by llm and if you are telling me that the page has indeed now been completely checked and references checked for relevance by you then I am happy to reconsider withdrawing the nom as it looks like the llm added content has been reviewed carefully by you. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All content currently in the article was fully human-written and verified by me. I have removed and revision-deleted all LLM-generated content because of the apparent copyvio. The prevalence of copyvio is why we changedWP:NEWLLM to now forbid this kind of use; I was just noting that this particular kind of article creation was permitted at the time when it was created, and the original author contributed in apparent good faith.
I would never argue that other editors are obliged to go through an LLM-generated article line by line and claim by claim. However, if an article does not qualify for WP:G15 speedy deletion (which is for LLM generated articles with no human review), I think it is reasonable to consider doing a WP:BEFORE and stubbing an LLM-generated article down to a single sentence as in this revision before bringing an article to AfD. I'm personally choosing to expand the article again after stubification because 18thC literature is an interest of mine, but a notable stub with a good infobox is a perfectly acceptable incremental improvement of the encyclopedia, and takes less total editor time than a full AfD. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think TNT is necessary any more, since I have already removed all LLM generated content. The current state of the article is completely different and human-written by me. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article was almost surely created through the use of LLMs. There is an ongoing cleanup thread dedicated to the recent edits of the author of this article on the AI cleanup Wikiproject. The user in the meanwhile has been indef blocked in the main namespace for the usage of LLMs and completely blocked some days ago for their daily evasions with TAs. I've already reverted his other edits, what is left are the articles created by him. There are multiple WP:AISIGNS such as WP:AILEGACY, but especially a lack of text-source consistency mixed with hallucinations: for example, in the text it's claimed that in Italy There are about 1 million hectares of olive groves in specialized use and another million in mixed farming. The claim is referenced with this source. The problem is that the source talks only about the first million, and there's no trace of the other million. Immediately above it's claimed that Central regions have 19% of the area [...] Only 2% is in the north. These informations are referenced with this source that doesn't talk at all of these percentages. They are true, but they come from a completely different source... Additionally, both GPTZero and Copyleaks confirm that the text is AI-generated. All in all, I think that's a pretty straightforward violation of WP:NEWLLM and that the best course of action is WP:TNT. --Friniate ✉ 14:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because llm slop is too difficult to cleanup. The editor who started the page has been blocked, with little other substantial edits from anyone else. The topic looks like it is likely notable. We just need actual humans to write it. JMWt (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that you've completely rewritten the article, thank you. I'd withdraw the procedure except that I see some problems in the current article too:
In the source it isn't said that Italy suspended the production of olive oil during WWI. In fact, it'd be almost impossible I think. What's being said is simply that "France and Italy were otherwise occupied" and they didn't export as much olive oil as before.
In this source I can't find anywhere that the Late Empire still had at least 200 groves. There's a 200 olive oil production installation figure, but it's referred to the Late Republic.
I don't really understand why only the olive charcoals dating back to 5740–5590 BC where cited when in the source are listed also older archeological discoveries related to olive oil production...
I can't check other sources, but I find quite strange sentences like Italy and Spain together produce 96% of all olive oil that is exported from either Italy, Spain or Greece into the top fifteen importers of olive oil. What does it even mean?
I don't know if these are all remnants of the LLM-slop that there was before, but if we're going to withdraw the AfD procedure and keep the article, we need to make sure that every piece of information is really backed by sources. --Friniate ✉ 09:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye, #1–3 were issues with my own (human) reading and I had difficulty coming up with a none-CLOP way to reword the source for #4. I have fixed those to the best of my ability. Let me know if there are still issues. Rand Freeman(talk to me)10:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of LLM per WP:NEWLLM. Exhibit A: a references claims "Retrieved May 18, 2024" when the page did not exist in 2024. The editor that created the page has detailed their misuse on the talk page JMWt (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is very little point in playing wack-a-mole, there are likely many errors one could find and many different reasons to !delete, the overwhelming one is use of LLM and it is not really worth the effort to find and argue about all the other details. JMWt (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's barely an argument with an unexplained and nonsensical error like that where it would even qualify for G15. Even if this were someone's old draft from 2024, the access-date should have been updated when the author (should have) re-read the source again before including it. --Gurkubondinn (talk)11:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per G15. That access date error is a sure sign that the editor did not properly review the article, and admitting that it was created by AI is a headshaker. Ravenswing 15:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
G15 Delete In addition to above, the " History of the Clay-working Industry in the United States" links to completely unrelated book. I tagged the article for speedy. JumpytooTalk17:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any weak, connected, or promotional sources should be discounted or removed, and any wording that appears non-encyclopedic should be cleaned up. However, I believe the subject is still covered by multiple independent sources that support notability, including Engineering.com (2021 and 2023), LSM (2020), Dienas Bizness (2020), and Tech.eu (2022). In my view, the key question is whether the topic has significant independent coverage, and I believe those sources are the relevant basis for evaluating that. Any prose or sourcing cleanup issues can be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. Martin-Palmet (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article smells LLM generated and was created with HTML markup. All sources are either unreliable (forums/Reddit) or primary from Canon. Laura240406 (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also have a look at all the other pages (starting from November 2025) created by the creator of the page, all follow this pattern and some have been struck down as LLM generated already Laura240406 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NEWLLM and WP:GNG, with full prejudice. This page doesn't even properly document the protocol, and the sourcing is not even close to WP:RS. If the protocol should be documented on Wikipedia then it should've been done in a section of Canon RF lens mount, which this page doesn't even link to. There's no wikilinks at all on the page, which is another indicator of very sloppy chatbot use. --Gurkubondinn (talk)11:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the artile was deleted under G15 by rsjaffe. I don't want to close the discussion because I !voted in it, and it's also not recommended for non-admins to close if the outcome was a deletion. --Gurkubondinn (talk)11:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I am not aware of any issues with the article. WP:LLMDISCLOSE cannot be grounds for AfD nomination, IMHO. Just in case, I have run verification on the claims in the article and a check for close paraphrasing that did not point to any major issues either (results are on the talk page). Викидим (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question: have you actually read all of the sources you reference in the article? Are you able to reference academic papers correctly? Why exactly have you used an llm - and do you have the skills to assess and critique the responses it gives? JMWt (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, with a caveat. Article, contrary to the assumption by the nominator, is not entirely created from the LLM output. In addition to a lot of my manual edits, it is based on a translation from the Russian Wikipedia (ru:Смесоипостасная Троица), all of this BTW is clearly listed in the LLMDISCLOSE. Russian source proved hard to get, so I did not read it and simply trusted the author of the Russian article, see the details (yellow question mark) in the verification table on the talk page of the article. Викидим (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You possibly misunderstood what I have just said: with the exception of one (!) 1924 source that is only used for one (!) trivial claim, I have read and checked the sources against all the article text. If the one short sentence that still requires the 1924 academic source for verification is a problem (it is A Synod decree from June 11, 1764, had already previously ordered that "strange and absurd indecencies" in iconography—specifically citing the three-faced, four-eyed Trinity presented to the Empress as resembling "Hellenic gods"—be suppressed), then surely this sentence can be deleted as opposed to the whole article? Викидим (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are both correct. Seeing where this train is going, I have fetched one Russian source and reviewed it, thus the discrepancy. The 1924 source is not marginal, just old and not widely available. To close the issue, I have spent some time and got the book online in the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library. Will read it and update verification report in a short time. Викидим (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am somewhat puzzled by this AfD. The article is pretty robust, with sources, sfn templates with page numbers, and now even a verification report on the talk page with quotes from sources. What percentage of our articles are at this level of development, even the new ones? For a comparison, let's look at the Miss Venezuela 1996 (we recently had a whole series of these restored to the article space): just two sources, each one used to confirm just one claim (some in the series have just one source), no traces of any attempt of checking the WP:V. I fully expect each of these articles with practically all claims unsourced to have multiple factual errors, yet they seem to generate no stir. On a common-sense level, concentrating on the "Trifacial Trinity" seems like wasting time. The purpose of the AfD IMHO is to weed out the bad articles, not the ones written with the help of a particular tool. Викидим (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The editor who authored this article is competent at producing content for Wikipedia. He applied AI to assist him in creating the article, and then spent the effort required to make sure the article is worthy of keeping. WP:NEWLLM is not a content guideline, it is a behavioral one, because most people cannot be trusted to use LLMs responsibly. What do we do when an article is fixable? We fix it. This article has not only been scrutinized to determine that there isn't anything glaringly wrong with it, it is far past the threshold that if anything is wrong with it, it would probably be minor and definitely worth fixing. Therefore, we should keep the article. You have at least 2 experienced editors willing to further improve the article as needed (myself included), so look it over carefully, and point out any problems you can find with it, and they'll be fixed in short order. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist06:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which focuses on how it was edited (with what tools), that is, using AI, which is a behavior. Check the arguments. They are about the probability of screw ups with a tool in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing. So, it doesn't apply here. AfD is about content, so let's focus on that. The content of this article has been gone over carefully to identify and remove any such problems. So, its development has already transcended those concerns and moved past that phase of development. It's in the tidying up stage now. Again, if there is anything wrong with the article, point it out, and it will be fixed. That's a major purpose of AfD: to determine what needs to be done to an article to make it worthy of keeping. — The Transhumanist07:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. The point is that if someone uses llms - to the extent of trusting the output more than themselves - then nobody can check it. Not them, not anyone else.
As I have alluded to above, the llm was asked to create a reference. The reference is wrong. The editor has not noticed and has not made any effort to correct it - and we are now to take it on trust that all the other things they have added, which I cannot quickly check, have been done carefully and to the best standards of en.wiki? JMWt (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have discovered an issue (The reference is wrong), would you mind telling me what this issue is, so I can fix it? Викидим (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no I can't. The whole point is that you seem unable to intelligently moderate the results of the llm. If you can't see what's wrong with the reference then maybe you need to have a bit of a think about how and why you are using llms like this. There's a perfectly usable system for creating references, so use it. Everyone else does.JMWt (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague, no I can't might mean different things: (1) "no, I do not know of any issue" (2) "yes, I do know about an issue, but cannot tell you". Which one is it? Ad hominem discussions If you can't see what's wrong with the reference then maybe you need to have a bit of a think ... do not improve the article. Викидим (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
we are not here discussing improving the article, we are discussing whether it meets the standards for inclusion and by your own words and deeds it does not. You have added slop to this encyclopedia and expect praise and thanks for doing it. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could care less about the praise. As my profile in Russian says, "Through my work, I get regular, independent (often market-driven) proof that I'm right, so I don't need to stroke my ego by winning Wikipedia discussions just to keep my endorphin levels up." Here, I simply look for a straight answer to a simple question: do you know of any error in this article? Викидим (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEWLLM. The editor that did much of the work on the page has been open that they have used an LLM improperly and there is evidence that the LLM just isn't very good at writing Wikipedia articles. In future use your brain and ability and do not delegate to a statistical model. JMWt (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I did not say that I have used an LLM improperly. (2) When I was young, some very good linguists taught me that many theories of language declare it to be a statistical model (cf. Exemplar theory), and the goal of learning is to form or shift these distributions. AI at the time was just a way to get government grants, LLM did not exist. I therefore see no shame in using a statistical model working faster than my brain (similarly to the porter who does not deliver goods better than the delivery driver, just slower). Викидим (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes you did. You said how you used it which was clearly against WP:NEWLLM. There's absolutely should be shame in using LLMs to create obviously bad content. There's nothing else to be said, do not expect me to reply to you again. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a stark contrast in conduct here between the keep and delete sides that needs highlighting for the closer. Викидим has bent over backwards in good faith—disclosing AI use upfront with WP:LLMDISCLOSE, building from a ru:WP translation, manually verifying all claims (including sourcing a rare 1924 book mid-discussion via the Yeltsin Library), and providing comprehensive verification tables with quotes right on the talk page for anyone to check. That's about as in good faith as you can get.
Contrast that with the following deletion supporter's approach:
JMWt alleges a "wrong reference" but in the face of three direct requests to specify (so others can fix it!), responds "no I can't" and "do not expect me to reply again." That's not collaboration, it's disruption of the AfD process, that blocks improvement against the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:FIX.
And then there are the aspersions. There's no call for personal barbs here, and yet the attacks have piled up, right on this page: "Unable to intelligently moderate," "have a bit of a think about how you're using LLMs," "added slop to this encyclopedia and expect praise."
Slop? From an editor who discloses his methods, verifies his sources page by page, tracks down rare volumes from the Yeltsin Library while under fire, and lays out quotes for everybody to see?
its not an aspersion. You also are capable of looking at the references and determining if they meet the standard. Instead you are here making unverifiable claims about the competence of an editor using LLMs - who has by their words and actions by definition shown that they are unable to read, internalise and understand WP:NEWLLM to the extent that they cannot even understand the problem. There are only a small number of references on the page, so go back there, look critically at the references and have a think about why it is unacceptable. We don't use LLMs like that. End of. JMWt (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague, it looks like I have finally solved your riddle. You most likely refer to the cited work of Judova. If yes, there is no error there - and no AI involvement. This is apparently an unpublished work, so {{cite journal}} is not applicable. I would not have quoted it at all, but its importance was validated by a publication in a peer-reviewed journal (Thiessen 2018). Thiessen had quoted Judova in exactly this way - as a web reference to academia.edu. For precisely the reason of the missing publication place and date, this is the reference I have struggled with, and ended up handcrafting it. So whatever deficiencies are there, they are entirely my fault, not an AI running unchecked. If this is the issue you have refused to disclose, your arguments here do not have any foundation.
To avoid future confusions, I have now added a small note to explain the cite, the reason for its inclusion and the cite format. I have also added "n.d." to explicitly specify that neither I, nor Thiessen know the date the work was written on. Викидим (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of this god-awful essay literally says "Discuss the work of art in relation to medieval ideas about physiognomy and/or
Delete per NEWLLM and what JMWt is saying. It is the same argument that I have tried making countless times at this point, just presented much better thah I have managed to. The LLM has evidently added at least one false claim, and we are then being asked to trust the rest? In an article where those of us that don't speak Russian are unable to verify the sources ourselves? That is a gamble to slowly degrade the encyclopedia. --Gurkubondinn (talk)10:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not going to stuff AI-generated WP:BEANS up my nose. You have the same capability as JMWt to find this reference, and if it is pointed out then you would just fix/remove it and claim that the problem is now fixed. But this is only a symptom, and it is a symptom that tells us that the sources have not been adequently read by the author, which shows that we cannot be asked to trust the rest of them either. --Gurkubondinn (talk)19:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. The fact that nobody has gone back and edited the reference to meet the normal standards for referencing on en.wiki and instead want to come and fight for the right to be respected whilst poorly curating the results of an llm says all that needs to be said. Can't Even See The Problem. JMWt (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Academia.edu is not a publisher, it is a repository. We never reference anything without a date. That's two mistakes which an experienced editor who actually has access to the source they are citing would not make. As stated above, it is a symptom. A symptom of a poorly referenced article where the llm has written a nonsense reference that an editor with experience of writing and referencing academic articles would not make. The norms are very clear and obvious at WP:CITE. JMWt (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
on further investigation - which to be clear, I absolutely did not need to make - the source itself is unreliable and undated. It is likely either a university essay written by an undergraduate or is itself a product of an AI halucination. Either way, entirely unsuitable as a source on en.wiki. That's without considering the content, which is likely to be complete rubbish. JMWt (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied elsewhere on this thread. If you are still unhappy (Thiessen 2018 was OK with that), this reference can be removed. Citing undated work is perfectly normal, out cite templates even support the n.d. format for it, it is used countless times throughout Wikipedia. Викидим (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LLM trash. Competent human beings are required to write encyclopedia articles to avoid fabrication and plagiarism. The article says "By the 12th century, direct representations of the Trinity began to flourish ..." and the cited source says the exact same thing minus one word: "By the 12th century, however, direct representations of the Trinity began to flourish ..." Don't waste any more of our time with this type of thing. Asparagusstar (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I understand the author tried their best to wrangle the LLM to be policy compliant, there are still some issues, such as here where the LLM picked the incorrect painting than what was used in the source. I also asked LLM to do source verification, and it found issues, with the most concerning one being a continuity error (A Synod decree from 11 June 1764 cites the "three-faced, four-eyed Trinity presented to the Empress", which earlier in the article says it given in 1767?). Combined with the other issues called out above, I don't have the confidence here to IAR NEWLLM in this case. LLMTRANSLATE cannot be used here, as per the prompt history provided by the author the base of the article was generated by the LLM, and the Russian WP article was only provided later. JumpytooTalk01:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Listing this here seems like an abuse of WP:PROMO and a breach of WP:NPOV; calling it promotional is absurd. This is part of a WikiEdu project; a page less than two days old is inevitably in need of more reliable sources. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I doubt the nominator read through the article. "Promotional" is hardly a description of any of the residential schools. PKT(alk)11:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It appears the nominator came across a brand new user's work-in-progress and tried to abort it in its infancy. We seem to have a new user working productively to create their first artcle. Don't bite the newbies, try helping them instead. We need more good editors. There are plenty of reliable sources here to establish Wp:N via Wp:GNG.Jacona (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Creator is part of a WikiEdu project and there is no comment at all on their talk page or the article page to assist the editor who is likely confused right now as to why a class project being actively worked on is being put up for deletion. The PROMO allegation is beyond absurd too, as this is about an issue which has harmed actual people. Albicanto didn't even put up any AfD notice, which they are required to do, and now we have an LLM allegation unexplained outside a hatting, and again the original editor has no idea what's going on, so I'm not going to tag them now to throw them into confusion, but I would suggest someone explain and do so, because I will NAC this as a procedural keep if that does not happen in the next few hours. Nathannah • 📮18:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, best case, draftify per WP:NEWLLM and clear AI dependence. (In addition to the links copied from ChatGPT, language like the paragraph beginning The rediscovery of these childhood artworks...strongly suggests chatbot involvement in the text itself.) Sorry, but student editors need to learn as soon as possible not to do that. Their teacher needs to be teaching them proper research practices, not dependence upon the slop machine. WP:PROMO is inapplicable, but this is bad. It's bad for the encyclopedia, and it's bad as a class project, since it is failing to develop the skills that a project is supposed to nurture. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. The author has admitted to using LLMs for creating articles and writing new content. And short as it is, this stub reads like it was generated, the statement that [it] was a popular format seems like WP:OR. --Gurkubondinn (talk)10:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from personal experience, this was a somewhat common format for Macintosh software documentation in the early to mid-1990s; it was used by Apple themselves for the CD-ROM edition of Inside Macintosh, for example. Online coverage is going to be sparse given the time period; a comprehensive search of print sources might turn up more coverage. Omphalographer (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some sources (MacWelt, MacFormat) show the article subject may be notable. Sourcing could be better, but I expect other similar sources as presented here exist offline. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article was almost surely created through the use of LLMs. There is an ongoing cleanup thread dedicated to the recent edits of the author of this article on the AI cleanup Wikiproject. The user in the meanwhile has been indef blocked in the main namespace for the usage of LLMs. I've already reverted his other edits, what is left are the articles created by him. There are multiple WP:AISIGNS such as broken links that never existed and most of all clear hallucinations: for example, in the article it's being said that He participated in the battle of Tabasco, where he played a prominent role as royal factor,. This clearly doesn't make any sense, since a factor is a civil role, not a military one. In the cited source it's written Así, en Tabasco, fue designado factor real (u oficial encargado de recolectar los beneficios e impuestos del rey). [transl. In Tabasco he was nominated royal factor (and officer in charge of the collection of royal taxes)]. Why it's mentioned a battle then? Well, that probably comes from the First Battle of Tabasco, which was fought during the Mexican-American war, three centuries after Vázquez de Tapia's death. I think that's a pretty straightforward violation of WP:NEWLLM and that the best course of action is WP:TNT.--Friniate ✉ 12:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pretty clear NEWLLM violation. Disclaimer: I am an active participant in the WP:AIC project, though I have not previously been involved in the cleanup of this user. --Gurkubondinn (talk)14:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject has enough sources to meet notability. But I'm unclear of the criteria for LLM generated articles. I know they're banned. But should they be draftified or deleted? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of sources, his book has been reviewed by notable scholars, there are contemporary sources about him, and other scholarly articles listed in es.WP as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Itzcuauhtli11 I agree that the subject is notable. But fixing an article written by an LLM is actually more difficult and it takes more time than rewriting it from scratch. --Friniate ✉ 09:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy deletion G15 as all the references exist however none of them include the term "quatitative generative AI" , the History section is a series of unrelated statements about computing and statistical terms. Even if this wasn't LLM-produced it would be eligible for deletion due to lack of notability as there are no reliable sources for this term. Orange sticker (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the numerous amount of words that are bolded is what AI seems to do best. Almost every LLM created article I've seen has had bolded words in unnecessary places. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be just me, but I feel like every article I see with Bolded sections nowadays automatically gives me LLM suspicions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being AI garbage, and for failing notability. There is literally nothing, barring Michael Fares' Facebook page and the publisher's listing for the book, that appears on Google when you search for it in English. I have tried "media of hate michael fares", "hate media michael fars", "hate media michael faris", "media of hate: mechanisms for covering identity conflicts" and "hate media: mechanisms for covering identity conflicts". For the Arabic version of the title, reviews on Youm7 and VDL News of the book appear: [10][11]. The tone of them when run through Google Translate does not seem promising (the latter may have been AI-generated). Rand Freeman(talk to me)21:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like it was initially submitted at AfC, but then was moved out of the draftspace by another user. The user seems to have accepted articles with very similar issues. As such, I have to question if this is a case of sockpuppetry or if it's a case of a group of people working in tandem to move extremely poor quality articles live. This should absolutely be deleted and I highly recommend opening an SPI to investigate here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but I opted to leave the user a message on their talk page first. Their activity is very sporadic, but they have a consistent pattern of moving drafts by non-autoconfirmed users to mainspace that goes back to December 2022. I nominated the three most obviously problematic for deletion; the others are less clear. I2Overcometalk20:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have regularly nominated articles and drafts for G15 due to CIRCULAR sources. But I never do it if there is only one CIRCULAR source, and there are also other sources. The G15 criteria includes "nonsensical references", which I argue includes CIRCULAR references. The criteria only lists examples of nonsensical sources, it is not an exhaustive list. But I wasn't arguing for a speedy deletion, my argument was just that this could be argued to qualify for a speedy deletion under G15. --Gurkubondinn (talk)14:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a brief search in Google Scholar, the topic of interaction between soft power and media has been covered in literature. This means that the topic is notable, but apparently the community has little tolerance towards llm-generated articles. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the interaction between soft power and the media may be notable, but that doesn’t appear to be what this is. This is some sort of LLM-generated conflation and WP:SYNTH of soft power and soft media, which is not the same as using the media for soft power. I2Overcometalk22:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stood out to me as a term I had never encountered in all my time studying IR. Indeed, a survey of both the listed references and the broader scholarly literature turns up essentially no results for "soft power media" as an independent concept. Clear WP:NOR violation at best, LLM hallucination at worst. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 07:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly LLM-generated. I already removed a few obvious signs (inappropriate use of boldface, redlink in See also, extraneous horizontal lines); also note the typical AI phrasing, lists, and context section, which contains a hallucination (the cited source says all ships travelling to Antarctica are limited to 100 passengers). Correction: I misread it, but the first part of that section is unsourced. I2Overcometalk11:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking now at the creator, there has been issues with LLM use, including removal of LLM tags when the issue is not fixed.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as new LLM and promotional content, without prejudice. It is possible this person is genuinely notable outside of their video review content, but with the article being so puffed up I can't tell. SenshiSun (talk) 11:03, 27 March 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.
I believe this article has been generated by an LLM, however there does seem to be a small number of reliable sources[12][13] that use this phrase (not just using large as a descriptor, but "LQM") so rather than nominate for speedy deletion under WP:G15 I'm bringing it here. I would still argue there is not enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article, but there is still the option to merge, redirect or stubify this article. Orange sticker (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the person who created the page added a dif with a large number of characters 1 and seems likely to be generated by llm. The subject itself may be notable however the risk of retaining machine-created content is overwhelming. Someone possibly will create a better page later. JMWt (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't deny that the term is used and the topic is real, but we shouldn't be allowing obviously LLM-written articles sourced to what appears to be churnalism to stand. Anything useful in the article can be merged as a new, human-written section in large language model, if quality sources could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
* Keep – While I understand the concern about the initial version of the article, the subject itself is supported by independent sources and is not limited to a single primary source. Coverage from ITPro, Forbes and the World Economic Forum discusses "large quantitative models" as a category of AI applied to scientific, financial, and industrial domains. The article has been significantly revised to address concerns about tone, sourcing, and structure. It now includes historical context grounded in established work such as imputation methods, FinBERT, and BloombergGPT, placing the topic within a broader and verifiable development of domain-specific and quantitative AI systems. Given that sources do exist using the term in a categorical sense (not merely descriptively), the topic appears to meet the threshold for emerging notability. If the current version is still considered too large or insufficiently developed, I would support trimming, merging, or reducing it to a smaller, well-sourced stub rather than deletion. Deletion would remove a topic that is already being discussed across multiple independent sources and is connected to established areas of AI research. Carloschilo (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are planning to immediately improve the page then you are arguing we should retain llm created content until someone else does it. No. We do not retain machine created content. That's the clear consensus on the issue. JMWt (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am planning to immediately improve the article but also ask for assistance because not being native English speaker. I rely on translation software for correction. Carloschilo (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is AI generated, which is forbidden, and looking at the sources just reminds us why we don't allow AI content here: the sources are 4 blog-type posts that are not acceptable as reliable sources, two arXiv links to articles that don't mention the term at all, two book citations that cannot possibly relate to a newly-developed technology as they were published in 2001(!) and 2010, and a link to Scribd that I am not going to click because it could contain anything (Scribd is basically a hosting site for user-submitted documents). -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)14:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief search online confirms the topic exists, delete to make way for a more human written version of the article, at most the current verifiable citations here can be used to make the new one.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:37, 27 March 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.
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.
I am the OP of the article. Is NEWLLM an approved reason to delete an article? FYI disagree on the points on GNG, SPS, and PROMOTIONAL (this is a balanced article), and saying it's a COI because I used Claude is just silly. For GNG, consider:
Per WP:GNG "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." - The four Reliable Sources WP:RS in your list verify that Anthropic HAS a safety policy, but don't provide significant coverage OF THAT POLICY showing that THE POLICY is notable enough for a standalone article.
Waymo has designed a self-driving hardware/software combination system, for which they might even have a name (maybe "The Waymo Chauffeur") but unless "The Waymo Chauffeur" gets: "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." than, per policy, we won't have an article on it. ---Avatar317(talk)22:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEWLLM. Beyond that, there is no indication that a stand-alone article on this topic is remotely necessary, or that the best way of treating it is to separate it from our main coverage of Anthropic. It's the corporate-policy equivalent of a changelog. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agree with the assessment that this fails WP:GNG. While the sources provided confirm the topic has been mentioned in recent news, they do not provide the SIGCOV coverage necessary to justify a standalone article over a mention in the parent Anthropic page. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 1 April 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.
There are many issues with this page, the most obvious of which is that it's entirely AI slop. The original form of the article was intended to promote an AI website called aeronauticsmagazine.com, but that has since been removed. The user contesting the PROD asserted that this is a WP:SIA, but I don't see how it meets any of the criteria to exist as one: it isn't navigationally useful as none of the entries are bluelinked, there's no evidence that the topic of "magazines called Aeronautics" is notable, and the third criterion ("Short, complete list") states Lists in which no entry is notable are rarely appropriate. Even if the topic is notable and encyclopedic, WP:TNT applies, as there are no inline citations, making it unreasonably difficult to determine where the AI has hallucinated. lp0 on fire()09:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it meets either the first or third criterion for a WP:SETINDEX. The essay WP:TNT applies ONLY to articles "hopelessly irreparable" (first sentence). So keep and prune. Will give it a radical try. ~2026-16195-13 (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that any of the individual magazines are notable (if they were, we would create individual articles for them), and definitely no indication that the topic "magazines called Aeronautics" is notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that "it is within admins' and closers' discretion to discount, strike, or collapse obvious use of generative LLMs" (Now in guideline: WP:AITALK)
"Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used." "Obvious exceptions include articles about AI, and articles about notable AI-generated images. The community objects particularly strongly to AI-generated images (1) of named people, and (2) in technical or scientific subjects such as anatomy and chemistry." (Now in policy: WP:AIIMAGES)
The WMF announced that machine-generated summaries of articles would be presented to readers, but then put the project on hold in response to negative community feedback.
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.
South Korea enacts a law that requires human oversight of high-impact artificial intelligence (AI) systems, mandates disclosure and labeling of certain AI uses, and institutes fines of up to ₩30 million (around US$20,400) for violations. (Reuters)
