Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyleaks
In this article, we will explore and analyze in depth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyleaks, a topic that has captured the attention of people from different backgrounds and interests. With the intention of providing a complete and enlightening vision, we will address different aspects related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyleaks, from its origin and evolution to its impact on current society. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we will examine its relevance in various contexts and how it has shaped the way we perceive and understand the world around us. Likewise, we will give a voice to experts and protagonists in the field, whose experiences and knowledge will enrich the understanding of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyleaks and its meaning today.
- 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Copyleaks (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)
Questioning whether the company has WP:SIGCOV for WP:NCORP. Sources generally list a variety of detection tools and are not primarily about Copyleaks. Suggesting a merge into Artificial intelligence content detection. (Disclosure, I have rejected the article in draft form once) IgelRM (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Connecticut. IgelRM (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or Draftify: Good number of reliable sources, and if consensus is that subject is not notable now, I think its highly likely the consensus would be that they are in the future. Comintell (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Source review for demonstration:
- New York Times, "Another Side of the AI Boom: Detecting What AI Makes": A feature on detecting AI generated content, questionable SIGCOV.
- Fox News, "AI platform CEO talks new tech detecting plagiarism following Harvard scandal: 'As prevalent as ever'" Primarily an interview.
- Forbes Staff, "New Tool Can Tell If Something Is AI-Written With 99% Accuracy": Same as one
- BBC News, "How to spot an AI cheater": Same as one
- IgelRM (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Source review for demonstration:
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify: might be WP:TOOSOON. Most articles are passing mentions and listicles.Royal88888 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Requesting speedy draftification of this one, I think this subject has merit, and want to be able to take time to improve it.
- Comintell (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (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.