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. At present, the sources in the article are articles from makeusof.com and zdnet.com. At least zdnet.com is generally accepted as a reliable source, and in the review article, there is some coverage of the software in that article, along with several other competing softwares. The reliability of makeusof.com is disputed though. While Kvng's call for a keep is a relevant and good faith argument, and has received some support, the source analysis by CNMall41 and HighKing make a persuasive case for deletion when they point to the depth of the source, and the lack of multiple sources. Hence, the "delete" arguments are more in line with the notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroGPT[edit]

ZeroGPT (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)

The sources cited here are not fact-checked nor reliable. For instance, multiple sources say this company was created by OpenAI, or "ChatGPT" creators, however this seems to be blatantly false.

The concern is that wikipedia is giving this organization credibility, and confusing people. While there are recent mentions of ZeroGPT, it seems they came after this false information was produced about them, claiming that OpenAI is behind it.

ALSO** It seems there are people confusing ZeroGPT with GPTZero. One CNN article says "Meanwhile, Princeton student Edward Tuan introduced a similar AI detection feature, called ZeroGPT." [Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/tech/openai-ai-detection-tool/index.html) These issues cleary demonstrate the confusion surrounding "ZeroGPT" a non notable 'counterfeit' version of GPTZero. This page seems to be hoax.

Hoax citations on ZeroGPT page:

Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

[5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/chatgpt-creator-openai-unveils-zerogpt-5-things-to-know-about-this-new-ai-tool-101676610582897.html

Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/what-is-zerogpt-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ai-plagiarism-detection-tool-11676631205023.html

Quotes OpenAI research director and attributes to ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.businessupturn.com/technology/zerogpt-ai-tool-to-detect-plagiarism-and-ai-generated-content-against-chatgpt/ (proposed by Comintell) Comintell (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Products. Comintell (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

Comintell (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
3. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Comintell (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Problems in the current article can be addressed through editing WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that those sources comprises "Significant coverage in reliable sources".

  • Times Now News: India has a problem with undisclosed paid news. The vapid promotional prose and the lack of byline hints at possible paid news.
  • ZDNet - Single paragraph of prose
  • Makeuseof - Part of the Valnet content farm, unusable for anything else than the most basic of facts.
  • Livemint - Filled with mostly quotes, without critical analysis. A good example of a churnalism.

  There are some info scattered around, but nothing substantial that we can make an article out of. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to state for the record that I disagree with your assessment. A solid paragraph constitutes WP:SIGCOV. None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern is not of SIGCOV or any "notability" guidelines for that matter. It is that it is impossible to make a cohesive article out of the existing sources. There is zero room for improvement in the article. The article, in its current state, is all we can write about the software. It is impossible to add info on who made it, when it was released, its profits, etc. This is the best this article could get with the sources right not.

  I don't know what you mean by None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. since except ZDNet, none of the sources are in RSP (and besides RSP is not the holy grail). Only source I said had questionable reliability was Makeuseof, whihc is owned by Valnet, and publisher of various content farms. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering all sourced mention ChatGPT in some way, a merge or redirect might be possible IgelRM (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kvng what are you doing? Did you read the live mint article? It is factually inaccurate. It says ChatGPT creators made ZeroGPT. From my research into timesnownews it seems like a paid blog site. You have 96,000 edits, do you really believe those are reliable sources? Comintell (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Comintell, what I'm focused on here is determining whether this is a notable topic. I believe it is. Cleanup is a separate issue. The threshold for notability is multiple reliable sources. I provided 4 candidates and before the AfD there were a few others cited in the article. I trust you that there are issues with some of the sources but do your disqualifications take it down to a situation where there is one or fewer sources to work from? ~Kvng (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Im the newbie compared to you, so i don't want to come off as If I know more. But I created Jasper AI after having it drafted, and then nominated for deletion for not being notable enough. I wouldn't count make use of as a strong source by itself. As a supporting source sure. While ZDnet IS reliable, the article covers multiple similar tools indiscriminately. While notability doesn't mean the article has to be all about the subject, the fact that ZeroGPT has done nothing notable, and we don't know anything about them is literally scary.

  Take GPTZero for example. Press coverage showcases who's behind the tool, how it works, and core beliefs and mission behind them. They have gotten substantial coverage. It seems night and day compared to ZeroGPT. However, I respect your opinion and would be curious to know why or how you think ZeroGPT is notable. Comintell (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kvng. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added the references that Kvng found. Not sure this now meets notability requirements, but will make it easier to review. Owen× ☎ 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comintell (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible wikipedians, I ask you this: Why is it that this company is supposedly from Germany, yet has mostly NEWSORGINDIA sources?

Why is it that original sources are factually inaccurate?

More: Why is it that the world has to gain from ZeroGPT wikipedia page?

What were the intentions and experience of the original editor?

I tried cleaning this article up, my research led me to identifying that this page is a mistake. I made positive edits but on closer analysis found the references to be substantially unreliable. Please heed the red flags, and do thoroughly examine all of the evidence set forth. Comintell (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Saw another deletion discussion of a page that had far more citations, and was being ridiculed. The same standards should apply here. Y'all, this fails even most basic GNG. Cgallagher2121 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per reasons above. Félix An (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although the page is about software (not a company), it still falls under WP:NCORP guidelines. The main references being claimed to show notability are Zdnet which is on the perennial source list, but this reference is a review along with four other software programs so I would not consider it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MakeUseOf is a questionable source so I would say in the least it cannot be used for notability. I have brought up a new discussion at RSN so we can wait to see how that turns out. Another is LiveMint which is commonly associated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The reference being cited here has a byline, but looking at the author's contributions, they are writing on a variety of different topics outside of technology (business, politics, local news, etc.). This would indicate it is a contributor. I am borderline on regarding it as reliable for notability in this case but even if it is, that would only be one source. The final is Times Now which clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA and even if disputed as such, the information is only a single paragraph and does not meet CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a product therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the product*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources have the necessary content to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]