Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial intelligence in social media

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.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in social media

[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)

Non-notable and entirely unsuitable to be merged. Text has clearly been created with some form of LLM-assistance, and suffers from pervasive neutrality and sourcing issues. I started trying to attempt a cleanup but upon encountering a journal that was cited to page 22 when the journal itself was only 21 pages I knew it was unsalvageable. If an editor believes this to be a notable topic, then it will be easier to apply WP:TNT than to try and groom the current mess into a sourced and encyclopedic form. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. please confirm your statement.

I wanted to express that I’m feeling quite frustrated today. I came back to editing Wikipedia after many years, hoping to contribute positively now that I have more time. However, my recent experience has left me feeling like the editing environment has become quite monopolized by a tight group of editors.

Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback, I feel that my article has been heavily targeted — with multiple edits and removals coming from what appear to be linked editors. Frankly, it feels like there’s a coordinated effort or bias to remove my contributions, rather than improve them collaboratively.

I would really appreciate more transparency and guidance, rather than feeling like I’m being dismissed or blocked without a fair chance to improve the article.

Please let me know if there’s a better process for addressing these concerns. WikiJuanBeltran (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. – Downsides of using an LLM to edit, you don't even know what gets included. See the very first revision of the page here, citation 4.

raw citation

{{Cite journal |last=Akhtar |first=Zarif Bin |date=2024-06-12 |title=Unveiling the evolution of generative AI (GAI): a comprehensive and investigative analysis toward LLM models (2021–2024) and beyond |url=https://jesit.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |journal=Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22 |doi=10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |issn=2314-7172}}

"Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback" – [1][2][3][4]. Additional feedback from myself: stop using an LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly AI-driven editing (as is the article author's comment on this AFD), not worth cleaning up the factual errors and sourcing - the author clearly has no idea which sources are reliable and which aren't, even after being pointed to the relevant guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While considerable effort has gone into formatting the citations, the article itself is obviously an AI-generated persuasive essay, not a neutral encyclopedic summary of a noteworthy topic. NotBartEhrman (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT per nom. There are far too many problems here. Many of the sources I looked at didn't support the sentences they were attached to at all. Several of these sources predate the issues they are supposed to be documenting. Further, many of these sources are to pre-prints, corporate blogs, self-published essays, or opinions used for sweeping statements of fact. Tellingly, only one of the cited sources includes 'social media' in its title, and that source doesn't mention 'artificial intelligence' at all. The tone issues are pervasive. The only way to salvage this would be a complete rewrite from the ground up, and only a few of these sources would even be usable at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Every single reference is either primary and/or unreliable. The bot that tied this together ironically shows the limits of AI. FWIW, I'm on record as welcoming many new and returning editors. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates numerous Wikipedia policies. Would require a total rewrite to make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 2 June 2025 (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.