- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio giuliano 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Social Security in the United States of America (USA) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This draft is a hoax. References were generated by a LLM (see WP:LLM and current ANI discussion): none of them are real.
" "Characteristics of the Population by Sex and Age" is not a real title. Sylvester J. Scheiber never wrote such a paper. This phrase appears nowhere online.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/1956amend.html is a fake URL which returns a 404 error (this draft was written ten days ago). This URL has never existed.
The access dates are fake as well; they say the pages were accessed in 2018, but the draft was created on January 17, 2023. jp× g 12:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep: Given that the title implies a real subject which does exist, there is a chance that someone will come along and rework this draft into a valid article. If no one does, it does not matter, we have no need to police draftspace. WP:NDRAFT. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 12:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)- Neutral: I question the necessity of bringing this to MfD, as if it's a hoax due to falsified sources, it should qualify for G3 and thus be speedily deleted. If it doesn't qualify as such, then I don't see any copyvios or BLP violations, so my instinct is to say that this should be left alone per WP:NDRAFT, as that's what I'd say if it were written by a human. But on the other hand, maybe we should delete it on principle, to discourage people submitting AI-generated texts such as this. I'm not really sure. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We
already have an article on this topic. That, and it's
still a hoax. Even
according to the essay that was linked. I truly doubt there's anything to salvage from this.
~GoatLordServant(
Talk)
13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- If it qualifies for G3, then there's no need to nominate it for discussion here. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We
already have an article on this topic. That, and it's
still a hoax. Even
according to the essay that was linked. I truly doubt there's anything to salvage from this.
~GoatLordServant(
Talk)
13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per
WP:LLM deletion section, it qualifies for G3 because of mostly fabricated sources. Per
WP:LLM suggested policy, LLM should have been declared somewhere, and the editor who ran the LLM should have gone through and cleaned up the article, but none of that was done, and it was submitted anyway. Per
WP:NDRAFT It does not qualify for G2 since it's been done on a draft space. If kept because of testing purposes, it should not be resubmitted for AFC review or moved to mainspace since the topic already exists.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tagged it as G3, but it was declined by Bbb23 as they did not feel it to be an obvious hoax. As is made clear here it is only not apparent as a blatant hoax when not closely scrutinized.
- I agree it's likely not a useful draft, but I feel that the MfD isn't really necessary. My "keep" vote was the same as what I'd have said if this was fabricated by a human, as for the purposes of draftspace, I'm not sure the difference matters. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 17:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- G3 Speedy delete - The fake sources mean that this is a hoax, even if the topic is real and the content sounds plausible. There are several problems with leaving this in draft space: A) Someone could come along and unknowingly move/copy false information to mainspace; B) Cleaning it up is likely to take just as much time and effort as starting from scratch; C) Writing unsourced content and then searching for sources to support it is exactly the opposite of how an article should be written. I can understand why the G3 was declined, however we should set a precedent that this type of material is indeed a blatant hoax. – dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per WP:LLM. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 20:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Social Security (United States) - It isn't important whether this would be a valid draft if we didn't have an article. We do have an article, and this draft is inferior to the article (in various ways).
Robert McClenon (
talk)
07:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- except the title contains redundancy United States of America (USA) so it's not really a suitable redirect AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:LLM.-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. As discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia should not contain information created in this manner. Although the article concerns a genuine subject, and some of its contents are accurate, several aspects are incorrect or incomplete, in ways that are not readily detectible without cross-checking or subject-matter expertise, and therefore are dangerous. The bogus list of sources is an especially serious problem, both because they are inaccurate in themselves and because they give the article a false appearance of legitimacy. I consider this type of draft or article to be speedy-able under CSD G3 as
blatant and obvious misinformation
, but since another admin declined a G3 request I will simply comment here and leave the discussion open. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC) - Delete but not speedy under G3. I still feel like something needs to happen with CSD to enable speedy deletion of a page like this under the usually strict construction of the criteria; I know many disagree, but as long as there are admins declining, it points to a need for more objective clarity. There's a discussion at WT:CSD#New "G" variety for articles totally consisting of LLM text. In the meantime it's the best that MfD handles this. By deleting; agree with AngusWOOF about not redirecting. Maybe these types of cases could be expedited a bit by making it snow a little harder in the meantime. — Alalch E. 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia policy hasn't caught up with this wave of AI generated text but common sense says we should not be keeping text made with faked sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete the sources are fake and the topic article obviously already exists. (PS is “obviously redundant to existing article” a speedy deletion criterion? Because if not it should be)
Dronebogus (
talk)
06:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You can probably
WP:SRE to
Social Security (United States).
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "(USA)" part kind of eliminates that option. —
Alalch E.
19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-
USA redirects to
United States. Them being different disambiguations doesn’t mean we can’t redirect. Plus
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- USA is a useful redirect, and not at all analogous to the current draft title. We do not have a redirect "United State of America (USA)" because that is not useful. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-
USA redirects to
United States. Them being different disambiguations doesn’t mean we can’t redirect. Plus
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "(USA)" part kind of eliminates that option. —
Alalch E.
19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You can probably
WP:SRE to
Social Security (United States).
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio giuliano 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Social Security in the United States of America (USA) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This draft is a hoax. References were generated by a LLM (see WP:LLM and current ANI discussion): none of them are real.
" "Characteristics of the Population by Sex and Age" is not a real title. Sylvester J. Scheiber never wrote such a paper. This phrase appears nowhere online.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/1956amend.html is a fake URL which returns a 404 error (this draft was written ten days ago). This URL has never existed.
The access dates are fake as well; they say the pages were accessed in 2018, but the draft was created on January 17, 2023. jp× g 12:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep: Given that the title implies a real subject which does exist, there is a chance that someone will come along and rework this draft into a valid article. If no one does, it does not matter, we have no need to police draftspace. WP:NDRAFT. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 12:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)- Neutral: I question the necessity of bringing this to MfD, as if it's a hoax due to falsified sources, it should qualify for G3 and thus be speedily deleted. If it doesn't qualify as such, then I don't see any copyvios or BLP violations, so my instinct is to say that this should be left alone per WP:NDRAFT, as that's what I'd say if it were written by a human. But on the other hand, maybe we should delete it on principle, to discourage people submitting AI-generated texts such as this. I'm not really sure. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We
already have an article on this topic. That, and it's
still a hoax. Even
according to the essay that was linked. I truly doubt there's anything to salvage from this.
~GoatLordServant(
Talk)
13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- If it qualifies for G3, then there's no need to nominate it for discussion here. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We
already have an article on this topic. That, and it's
still a hoax. Even
according to the essay that was linked. I truly doubt there's anything to salvage from this.
~GoatLordServant(
Talk)
13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per
WP:LLM deletion section, it qualifies for G3 because of mostly fabricated sources. Per
WP:LLM suggested policy, LLM should have been declared somewhere, and the editor who ran the LLM should have gone through and cleaned up the article, but none of that was done, and it was submitted anyway. Per
WP:NDRAFT It does not qualify for G2 since it's been done on a draft space. If kept because of testing purposes, it should not be resubmitted for AFC review or moved to mainspace since the topic already exists.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tagged it as G3, but it was declined by Bbb23 as they did not feel it to be an obvious hoax. As is made clear here it is only not apparent as a blatant hoax when not closely scrutinized.
- I agree it's likely not a useful draft, but I feel that the MfD isn't really necessary. My "keep" vote was the same as what I'd have said if this was fabricated by a human, as for the purposes of draftspace, I'm not sure the difference matters. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 17:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- G3 Speedy delete - The fake sources mean that this is a hoax, even if the topic is real and the content sounds plausible. There are several problems with leaving this in draft space: A) Someone could come along and unknowingly move/copy false information to mainspace; B) Cleaning it up is likely to take just as much time and effort as starting from scratch; C) Writing unsourced content and then searching for sources to support it is exactly the opposite of how an article should be written. I can understand why the G3 was declined, however we should set a precedent that this type of material is indeed a blatant hoax. – dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per WP:LLM. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 20:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Social Security (United States) - It isn't important whether this would be a valid draft if we didn't have an article. We do have an article, and this draft is inferior to the article (in various ways).
Robert McClenon (
talk)
07:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- except the title contains redundancy United States of America (USA) so it's not really a suitable redirect AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:LLM.-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. As discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia should not contain information created in this manner. Although the article concerns a genuine subject, and some of its contents are accurate, several aspects are incorrect or incomplete, in ways that are not readily detectible without cross-checking or subject-matter expertise, and therefore are dangerous. The bogus list of sources is an especially serious problem, both because they are inaccurate in themselves and because they give the article a false appearance of legitimacy. I consider this type of draft or article to be speedy-able under CSD G3 as
blatant and obvious misinformation
, but since another admin declined a G3 request I will simply comment here and leave the discussion open. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC) - Delete but not speedy under G3. I still feel like something needs to happen with CSD to enable speedy deletion of a page like this under the usually strict construction of the criteria; I know many disagree, but as long as there are admins declining, it points to a need for more objective clarity. There's a discussion at WT:CSD#New "G" variety for articles totally consisting of LLM text. In the meantime it's the best that MfD handles this. By deleting; agree with AngusWOOF about not redirecting. Maybe these types of cases could be expedited a bit by making it snow a little harder in the meantime. — Alalch E. 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia policy hasn't caught up with this wave of AI generated text but common sense says we should not be keeping text made with faked sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete the sources are fake and the topic article obviously already exists. (PS is “obviously redundant to existing article” a speedy deletion criterion? Because if not it should be)
Dronebogus (
talk)
06:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You can probably
WP:SRE to
Social Security (United States).
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "(USA)" part kind of eliminates that option. —
Alalch E.
19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-
USA redirects to
United States. Them being different disambiguations doesn’t mean we can’t redirect. Plus
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- USA is a useful redirect, and not at all analogous to the current draft title. We do not have a redirect "United State of America (USA)" because that is not useful. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-
USA redirects to
United States. Them being different disambiguations doesn’t mean we can’t redirect. Plus
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "(USA)" part kind of eliminates that option. —
Alalch E.
19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You can probably
WP:SRE to
Social Security (United States).
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.