Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design Automation for Quantum Circuits

Design Automation for Quantum Circuits

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is hopelessly unsalvageable AI slop. Well over a third of the references are made up by AI. Cleaning up is impossible, and if a topic exists, this needs to be WP:TNT'd to have a hope of being anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are references gotten from published journals and conferences and books from reputable publishers. It was confirmed before adding. Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know which references are believed to have been taken from AI because they were well sourced from reliable journals and books.

Also, from the point of starting this article up until when it was submitted, there has been little or no use of AI to constitute the whole writing.

Kindly let me know what made the article be nominated for deletion, and I will correct it. Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You used AI to write it, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb I would like to know which references are believed to have been taken from AI because they were well sourced from reliable journals and books.

Also, from the point of starting this article up until when it was submitted, there has been little or no use of AI to constitute the whole writing.

Kindly let me know what made the article be nominated for deletion, and I will correct it. Chukwunalu J. Asuai

Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalete. As above, it is a hopelessly unsalvageable AI slop. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too technical for an encyclopedia to the point of being incomprehensible to most of the readership (let alone average readers), and has unencyclopedic phrasing, too (e.g., "Before diving deeper, it's helpful to understand..."). Ira Leviton (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- if "too technical", we can always request author of article to simplify contents to some degree for more general viewership, as even in wikipedia with its diverse range of subjects and interests will of course have different readers and this includes of course even the niche ones, did a random check on the citations list, so far ones I checked does seem to actual link to real websites and not just AI hallucinations. Can those who opted to delete for reasons of AI made, point out specifically the citations that are? Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They will link to real websites, the pages they link to don't contain what the citations say they do... That's the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any article using LLM should be speedied at this point... Too much to wade through and find what's true, what isn't, which sources are ok, which aren't and having to worry about if the subject is even notable to begin with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]