- 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 redirect to Peptoid. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Polypeptoids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a real class of compounds; however, the article is almost certainly LLM slop. The sources, while mostly real, only cover the subject indirectly in most cases when there are countless reliable secondary sources [1] covering the topic. The irregularities such as citations in section headings and the bizarre mix of both vague ("These might be useful properties for applications in materials engineering and medicine") and highly specific ("...containing 74% nitrogen functionalized with the neutral N-methoxyethyl group...") statements strongly suggest the article was made from select bits of LLM summaries of papers. I think this is a valid topic so this is a WP:TNT situation. If deleted, I volunteer to rewrite the article from scratch myself because I have expertise in this area. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify This subject is notable, but the article isn't good to be in main. It could use some improvements before it goes back public. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is nowhere near ready for main space. I don't think it's pure AI because if so, very human errors have been introduced (fig. 1 and fig 2 are basically from Fowler, but redrawn in colour, with an error in fig 1's alpha peptide so that it has an NH2 on both ends). But I'd be nervous of it going into draft space without someone like WeirdNAnnoyed taking an interest in it because it would be too easy for a naive editor to shunt it back into main space after a few cosmetic changes so it looks like a normal Wikipedia article, without dealing with fundamentals: removal of errors, moving references to the text they support (which involves reading the references!), and checking that it's genuinely an overview (the entire applications section appears to be a précis of a single paper). Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- EDIT: Sorry, I failed to notice that Peptoid is an existing article that completely encompasses the scope of this article, and is in much better shape. I still support a delete as my first choice (since the article is now redundant as well as badly written), but I could also support a redirect to peptoid. Any thoughts? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to peptoid as suggested just above. The term polypeptoid seems common enough in the literature that it's believable that people would search for it, and redirects are cheap. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to peptoid, yes, good idea. Elemimele (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2025 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.