Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Language. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Language

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway

AfDs for this article:

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

Uncited and not notable. In the past 12 years an enormous amount of uncited info has been added to the internet. So at least we could delete some. Wikipedians opinion on uncited articles may have changed since the last discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, Finland, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark (2nd nomination), since that article was split from this one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "...uncited info has been added to the internet [so] at least we could delete some" is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do sources for this article exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is wrong, since the Finnish names are usually endonyms: either Forest Finnish or Kvenish origin. Purely Finnish exonyms can be found from Finnish exonym database. List of Kvenish names can be found from a database (see also the "about" page). Discussion about the place names can be found in this article in Kielikello (in Finnish), and this article (in Norwegian). Also here: Språkrådet. The official toponymic guidelines also discuss Kven names. The topic is notable, although there's not much of an article here, and it needs a better name. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some discussion about Forest Finnish names: https://kielikello.fi/kaskisuomalaisista-metsasuomalaisiksi/ Perhaps rename as Kven and Finnish place names in Norway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position here: I don't find a mere list of place names appropriate per WP:NOT (and WP:NOTDICT), but an article that discusses how those names emerged, their legal status etc. is fine. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene exonyms

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

When I click the cite I get a warning that it may be a deceptive website Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Slovenia. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I replaced the link that generates a warning with a safe older archived version and added the official government source for these names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another reference from the corresponding article in Slovenian to demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sole reason stated for deletion is apparently that an external link had expired, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway (2nd nomination), since this article was split from that one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources." is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do such sources exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When skimming through this list I came across the clearly nonsensical "Korsonpuorrä". But neither Google nor Bing turn up any results for "Korsonpuorra" without the Ä at the end, which is what I assume was intended. So it seems like at the very least WP:TNT would indicate getting rid of this as at least some of the information just seems to be wrong. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of a deeper look, it seems that the Kven name of the place is the more sensible Kursunpörä, and "Korsonpuorrä" is the Norwegian transcription of that name. Sensible in Kven, that is, as the Standard Finnish form of this would presumably be "Kursunperä". I.e. it looks like the page is mixing up three different languages - Norwegian, Kven and Finnish. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This is just a listing of names from a geographical database. The reader would be better served by a link to https://www.kvenskestedsnavn.no and a real article which gives some background, and that should be the main article Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Edinburgh School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest this university department has independent notability outwith of University of Edinburgh JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Schools, Psychology, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Serbian Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or Serbia delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or China delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:SKCRIT #3, entirely erroneous nomination without a valid rationale. The article isn't even that bad, could use some work sure, but so can everything else. MediaKyle (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfD (where multiple editors called out this article for keeping in a bundled nom) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the pervious AfD, and because the deletion rationale makes no sense. Should we delete every article discussing for example Russian culture and make editors create them in Russian Wikipedia only? Of course we don't, and it's the same idea here. Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic meets WP:GNG as there are multiple independent sources covering Chinese exonyms as a topic of genuine study and academic interest (i.e. history, methodology and analysis of the translation of foreign place names into Chinese). This goes far beyond a simple glossary of terms and/or translations. Here are a few of these sources in English -- many more exist in Chinese which can be seen from the citations in these sources:

Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century, Social Text, Duke University Press.
Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia, Working Paper
Qin Weifen, Wang Difei, Transliteration of Indonesian Geographical Names into Chinese, Jurnal Humaniora
Henry Serruys, Place Names along China's Northern Frontier, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Feng-fan Hsieh, Transcribing foreign names, section from Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Lingustics, vol 4

Thus I believe a keep is warranted. Richard Ye^talk 13:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sebirkhan above quotes my usual rant about exonym lists, but this one is more than a bare list. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak exonyms (Vojvodina)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina

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

Normally at least 2 cites are needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Azerbaijani Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Azerbaijan. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tamfang. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am interested why some users trying to delete only turkic/muslim articles while there are a lot of similar pages in other languages. SEE: Template:Exonyms per language. For example they deleted already ONLY Turkish exonyms, and now trying do delete ONLY Azerbaijani exonyms Sebirkhan (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with religion - I am interested mostly in the country I live in and nearby countries Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why then, using the same logic, didn't you mark articles like the following for deletion: Slovak exonyms, Croatian exonyms, Bulgarian exonyms etc Sebirkhan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebirkhan, they are. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic languages like Dutch, Lithuanian, Chinese, Serbian, Slovene. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In March 2024 there was an attempt to delete all of them, which failed as too sweeping. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Vistulan (Zahódnjo Wisłewski)

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

Constructed language created in 2019 and, according to the source in the article, "published" 4 days ago. It's not clear that the language is actually spoken by anyone other than its creator. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zahódnjo-Wisłewski is a constructed language with consistent grammar, vocabulary, and cultural context, developed since 2019. While it is primarily spoken and maintained by the creator, it is shared online and used in creative expression, conlang communities, and social media. Similar artistic languages like Toki Pona, Wenedyk, or Brithenig also began as solo projects and are accepted on Wikipedia.

The language has its own writing system, mapped vocabulary, and sociocultural backdrop (modeled after the Czernichów Commune in Poland), which shows depth beyond a mere list of made-up words. The purpose of such entries is not always mass usage, but cultural and linguistic exploration.

I kindly request that this article be kept or moved to Draft space if needed, to allow for further development and referencing. Have an great day! Pchaccxback (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Zahódnjo-Wisłewski is a structured and documented conlang created with regional and cultural depth. It has its own grammar, script, flag, and presence both online and offline. Other artistic languages like Toki Pona and Brithenig are kept on Wikipedia despite limited speakers. This article documents a creative linguistic project, not just a personal code. Rozemmer (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is primary... I tried the Polish term -Zachodniowiślański- and only wikipedia mirrors come up. Nothing in Gnews, Scholar or Search. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it suposed to show people the language and for people to know that an language was made. BielikooPL (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. BielikooPL (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The language has an Grammar, vocabulary , own anthem, own alphabet etc. and it would we sad because someone was working hard for an language so i think we should keep it since the creator wants this to be known. i support all conlangs. (from NL) 77.172.72.23 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day language. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. By 2019, when this was created, and certainly by now, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. We are not the right place to host this - especially now when the rich and powerful are trying to destroy us. Bearian (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi-protected the article and blocked a new editor who kept trying to blank it (quite apart from trying to insert racist language). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Delete - there simply isn't any reliable sources evidencing that this language isn't something simply made up by one (or a few) people. There is no evidence of its actual usage. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because isnt this the same as other conlangs?? 89.200.14.155 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy has been trolling for quite some time now spreading hoaxes from many different accounts and IP adresses (see incidents entry). I'm amazed there hasn't been a reaction yet... Khan Tengri (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that’s simply not true. I’m not using other accounts or IPs and there’s no proof to back that up. Just because someone makes a conlang or edits in a niche area doesn’t mean they’re trolling. Ive been working seriously on this project and just want to share something creative. Also about the German names I only removed them because I couldn’t find any official sources showing they were ever used here. I wasn’t trying to mess with anything. And i also removed it because it was longer Polish. If you’re going to accuse someone atleast bring actual evidence. VPNs are banned anyway so how would that even work? BielikooPL (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is related to the trolling reported by Khan Tengri. I do however, believe that the accounts BielikooPL, Rozemmer and Pchaccxback are, at best, three people that know each other outside Wikipedia. According to the deleted (4 times) article on pl.wiki, the creator of this language is named "Bielikoo" so there's a likely COI to boot. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous lexicon engine

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

Non-notable, borderline nonsense concept with no evidence of uptake beyond the author. All About Jazz takes user-generated pages ([1]), and the other cited source is self-published. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Cryptocurrency. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete, nothing anywhere close to reliable coverage exists. Elestrophe (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible A11 candidate; appears to be AI-generated Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Zero reliable sources. Likely AI-generated nonsense. MidnightMayhem 18:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a 1 quote from the president of CASLI. Fails WP:ORG for lack of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I greatly improved the article. This association is the national, non-profit certifying body for professional American Sign Language-English, Quebec Sign Language-French interpreters in Canada. It's been active since 1979 and provides a crucial service which is notable. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the added sources are its own website and primary. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage has now been demonstrated spanning roughly four and a half decades, from publications across the country. This organization is a clear GNG pass, and more sources are likely to be found from here. MediaKyle (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess source depth and independence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy ahh blud

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and both of the 2 sources used in the article are questionable at best. Also largely duplicates Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, though I'm not sure if this phrase is widely used enough to warrant a redirect. ApexParagon (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is notable, and includes some context that a Wiktionary page wouldn't be able to. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:D485:2300:170D:20D1 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary pages can include both usage examples and etymologies. Delete. fx (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT & fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 13:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously ;-; 174.88.47.79 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument lol. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:6DE9:B5CB:E4FF:EC3D (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonly used term. It's ok to keep as a stub. Dirty Magazines (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Dirty Magazines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: This vote is this user's only contribution, their account was created within the same minute as their vote. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Alexf^(talk) 08:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diddyahhblud (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Diddyahhblud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Maybe this can be turned into a redirect if people think that is more appropriate idk. VronaMrk30 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to evidence notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:DICT. Kyleroo (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glossary of Generation Z slang per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Going to tag everyone in discussion to see if they agree with this idea or feel like sticking with their status quo. Angryapathy Jolielover Dirty Magazines Alexf Diddyahhblud PARAKANYAA Kyleroo Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose and still stand by my delete vote, as the term completely fails WP:GNG as it has close to no sources on it. There's nothing worth merging. jolielover♥talk 09:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover I find did one thing. Apparently it is from Kendrick Lamar instead: [2]. It would be worth searching though. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KYM, Know Your Meme is an unreliable source. Other than that, I find very few mentions of the phrase. I still don't think the term has any relevance. jolielover♥talk 11:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover Oh. I didn't realise that. It is actually not a banned source per WP:RSPISNOT Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial Sources is just a guide to previous discussions; the reason Know Your Meme is unacceptable as a reliable source is because it is user generated. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname0 Not trying to push for its use, but it doesn't say that is Prohibited, it does say that it is not a Policy or Guideline. I will be honest, I didn't even know what Know Your Meme was until just recently. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:USERGENERATED: "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are ... Know Your Meme", do note that the list there is non-exhaustive and provides samples for illustrative purposes. WP:USERGENERATED is a section of WP:Reliable sources, which is a community guideline. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Thanks for letting me know. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover, I would absolutely agree that the only option is just delete. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't mention that the term is used by members of Generation Z. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sold in doing a merge, KYM would classify as a tertiary source based on WP:TERTIARY, but we should use sources other than KYM due to WP:KYM which other editors pointed out already. But even then, KYM commonly cites primary sources, which is not erroneous in itself, but Wikipedia can't straight-up use primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. Kyleroo (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant notability for this meme, also fails WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDICT and insufficient notability. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT ~~because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI.~~ Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).

This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT? — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.

The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LouScheffer,

Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cnilep

Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (MOS:INTERNAL). Every single footnote I've been able to review is in the form of <thing>[ref to paper that introduced the thing]. This would be easily corrected by replacing them with wikilinks, but it means that the article does not have any references as we use them on Wikipedia, as a foundation on which the article is Wikipedia:Based upon. The fact that the papers cited are the original papers that introduced the things referred to means that they are for the most part going to be WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on discussion and review of the references, WP:V is not delete-level concern – yes, I agree more sources should be added. LLM-aided design is also a notable topic has has relevance to many fields, including biology where I have some experience. Kashyp et al (2025), Peng et al (2024). The editor is quite open to feedback and specific feedback can be given for further improvement if necessary. Overall, it's an useful contribution for an encyclopedia. WeWake (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles