Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Diagana

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 2019 World Athletics Championships – Men's 100 metres. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Diagana

[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)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NATH. Simply competing in world championships is not sufficient. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject was covered significantly in Die Rheinpfalz here: [1] --Habst (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Habst: can you describe the relevant content here? I think most of us don't have subscriptions to Die Rheinpfalz. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a subscription to read the article. I added a few details. --Habst (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added His lifestyle was contrasted with that of a Rheinpfalz reporter, who seemed busier but was unable to focus on one goal like Diagana had. If this nonsense, which I've reverted, is the extent of coverage in the Die Rheinpfalz article (it is also paywalled for me, can you paste an archive link please?) then it definitely is not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your source evaluation. It isn't the extent of the coverage, you can read it yourself and see that there is more. Archive links won't work, but you don't need a subscription either to see the full text. Can you re-evaluate once you've read the article instead of just the first paragraph? --Habst (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't archive links work? Where are you actually reading this source? JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading it from my phone, it's possible to get the full text from an app though I'm not sure to what extent this is intended. This trick wouldn't work with webarchives. Of course you could always subscribe as well. --Habst (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No IRS SIGCOV has been identified, including the paywalled source. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the source evaluation but I don't see how you can say that without having read the source? --Habst (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the only detail you’re giving us is that he “contrasts” his life. I would like to know whether it gives any details about Diagana (life, education, career etc.). FOARP (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any education details, but the life and career of Diagana specifically are definitely discussed. It's possible to access the article yourself free of charge, so I'm not sure why the immediate dismissal is appropriate when it hasn't even been read. --Habst (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree that no IRS SIGCOV has been identified. I can only see the first two paragraphs of the Rheinpflaz story but it does not appear to be significant coverage, since it is only a passing mention in the discussion of another athlete in the first paragraph and the second one switches to the topic of Eddie The Eagle for some reason.

Happy to switch to keep if I’m wrong about the Rheinpflaz story, but I’m would need at least a description of its coverage. FOARP (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, the piece is an artistic story that describes Diagana's lifestyle and contrasts it with Rheinpfalz reporter Salma Zougar. It does go in-depth specifically about Diagana (the whole section is only about him and no other athlete) and would fulfill WP:SPORTCRIT prong 5 but more importantly is a GNG hit. Can you switch your !vote or at least strike it until you have read the source? It's a little complicated but there are ways to get it for free. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some of the details it gives about Diagana? I cannot read the source as it is paywalled. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to pay to read the source; I did not pay to read it. It gives some details like where he lives and trains and what his day-to-day life is like. --Habst (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you did not pay to read the source since I hit a paywall, but if you can access it, could you excerpt the relevant section here and/or paraphrase it? This would solve the issue. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little complicated and I'm not sure to what extent this behavior is intended, but it's possible to read it for free using a trick. I described it in this comment above, or of course you can always pay for the subscription. I'm not sure how a delete !vote could be warranted without even reading the source? --Habst (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have linked is by Klaus D. Kullmann. Are you talking about a different article? JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same article. There is a language barrier here but I guess that Kullmann is discussing Zougar's first-hand interactions with Diagana. --Habst (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, there does appear to be some confusion going on here. Salma Zougar is not a reporter for Rheinpfalz. From the Google snippet I can see the phrase "Und zwar täglich. Er macht nichts anderes, erzählt er auf französisch der Marokkanerin Salma Zougar (23), die in Genf gerade ihren Master..." which in machine translation reads "He does nothing else, he tells in French the Moroccan Salma Zougar (23), who is currently completing her Master's degree in Geneva...". From her Linkedin profile it appears that Zougar was an interpreter at the time. This looks like an interview?

@Habst - It really would clear this all up if you provided the actual quote. This article is paywalled and not accessible to us. Would it help if I sent you a screenshot of the paywall I see every time I try to access the article? FOARP (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same paywall, I'm just saying there is a way to access it for free as well. I'm not sure to what extent this way is intended if I can describe here. If it is so important and the cost is not an issue you can subscribe? My main issue here is that I don't see how a delete !vote could be justified without having access (free or otherwise) to the source. --Habst (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you've told us so far doesn't indicate notability - it looks like an interview - and because there seems to be some uncertainty about what it says (Zougar is not a reporter for Rheinpfalz). But the complete quote could change that. For completeness I should point out for a WP:GNG pass we need multiple instances of IRS SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an interview, I have read the article and you can too. Per WP:SPORTCRIT prong 5, sports biographies can be kept with only one source of significant coverage. --Habst (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly can't read the article! Either explain how you're bypassing the paywall or paste the relevant excerpt.

And considering this source was used to support a lengthy, mangled, misattributed personal observation, I am highly skeptical that it actually contains any further encyclopedic coverage than what you've already added. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, what is misattributed? Zougar worked for Die Rheinpfalz at the time, as piece states, "...in Doha als Dolmetscherin arbeitet und der RHEINPFALZ ubersetzt". so there is nothing that was misattributed, nor lengthly, nor mangled. You can subscribe or use the app trick to read it yourself. There is an entire section of the article titled "Diagana ist von Beruf 100-m-Laufer" that is solely about the subject.

At some point this is getting silly because there are thousands of for-pay sources out there (which this isn't even an example of because it can be accessed for free as I have) – per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible". --Habst (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to paste it all here for copyright reasons but Perplexity AI was able to summarise this article for me, and Gemini could even extract the original text (in German and with a reasonable English translation), as long as I asked for it paragraph by paragraph. The summary accorded with perplexity AI, so it seems AIs have full access to this. I also looked at the page code, but the blurred text is obfuscated. In any case, I was able to find the pertinent sections from the blurred section:

Paragraph 5: Alpha Diagana [is] from the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where the 25-year-old lives and trains daily in the capital Nouakchott.
Paragraphs 6&7: He does nothing else, he tells in French to Salma Zougar (23) from Morocco, who is currently doing her master's in Geneva, working as an interpreter in Doha, and translates for RHEINPFALZ. He simply wants to get better. We don't mean this disrespectfully: Diagana was the slowest sprinter in Doha, 12.30 seconds. A personal best. He coped better with the humidity than Gilani.

And that is all. the piece is about people who came last, bit are still required to answer interview questions. Information on the page subject is what he said to Zougar in interview, and the slant of the report is last place competitors having fun. WP:IV pertains. The occasion of the article does not lend itself to a claim for notability, and I don't think that meets the definition of SIGCOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, I don't mean to be accusatory, but this sounds an awful lot like a hallucination and does not align with my reading of the source. It seems like it is only based off the Google search preview snippets already linked above. AIs aren't magic and would not have any more or less access to the source than humans, it seems like the AI is just pretending to have full access. --Habst (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst - sorry, but you're really leaning on AGF too hard here. If you want to show us that there's more than this, then show it. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I could do short of posting the entire article text here which would be a blatant copyvio. I also don't know what you mean by "leaning on AGF too hard" -- you either assume good faith, or you don't. If your entire objection is based on the fact that you don't believe me, you can say that but it would be against AGF. You are free to verify the claims yourself in this case, because the article is online. --Habst (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bulleted text is literally the Google translation of the article; implying that it's some hallucination that doesn't match the real content is deeply dishonest. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have only acted in good faith trying to assess the notability of the subject, using words like "dishonest" isn't helpful. Do you agree that using AI to determine notability while not being able to verify the claims of the AI is problematic? It's also not a literal translation; it's missing sentences (like the training daily one is its own sentence in the original) and the paragraph numbers don't match up at all with the source text -- paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 are just two paragraphs in the original if I'm interpreting this right. I wouldn't be relying on this output at all. --Habst (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More bad faith from you. I asked you to drop this. Give me one good reason why I should not take your civil POV pushing to ANI. You will note that when I carefully described my process for recovering the full text of the article from the google cache, I also was very clear about the limitations. I told you I had all the text, but for copyright reasons I only posted the relevant excerpt (under fair use). Now you pretend this means I only found part of it. You know and knew I had posted all the relevant text.

I explained that the AI will do its best to count paragraphs and when I posted what I had, I decided that it had split a paragraph where it should not have and joined it. Had you asked, rather than assumed, I would explain exactly why the algorithm misunderstood markup as showing a paragraph termination where none existed. Paragraphs are in markup, not in the prose, and having viewed the markup of that page, it would have made Berners-Lee cry.

But the real issue here, and the reason why you are flogging this dead horse, is because you misrepresented a source that you hoped we would not read. You claimed it had significant coverage, and until we recovered the text on it, you claimed it had more than we could see. This is not the first time you have done this. You have had me reading trivial coverage in Arabic newspapers, for instance, and spent time quibbling about page numbers (despite the number being printed on the page), claiming we could not read the sources and thus could not !vote anything but keep. Yet when I read the information, it was clearly trivial, and you must have known this.

Here, when I found and posted the text, you claimed that this was hallucination of an AI. When JoelleJay managed to work out what you had done and posted the exact same text you continued and continued and continued to pretend this was some kind of attempt to use AI to answer the question.

All of this just gives reams of text in these AFDS, which will ensure fewer people will wade into the discussion. You know this, don't you? If someone can sow enough doubt, you hope the only people who will show up at AFD will be the passing IP or AFD voter who will just !vote keep on ideological grounds. You don't want people to treat this as a discussion on the sources, so you obfuscate. And some poor closer is going to have to come along and read all of this. Again and again and again.

Assuming good faith is not a suicide compact. So again: one good reason why we shouldn't take this to ANI? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIs aren't magic As we have seen below, the text quoted above is exactly what is in the source, so magic or not, Gemini did what I asked of it this time perfectly well. Now I would not want AI's writing articles, nor rely on an AIs synthesis, but it seems to me that this comment was designed to sow confusion when you were already in a position to confirm what is confirmed below. That this is indeed all of it. Why you chose not to is a question for another place, but here is why I was confident in my use of AIs (and note, I used two as a check) in this case.

Firstly, we know that although the article is paywalled, and hidden in the Google Cache, that it has hidden content that is searchable by Google. That is, Google have a copy of the text, if they can be persuaded to show it to us.

Secondly it is also clear that Gemini, Google's AI, has unrestricted access to the cache. I am unsurprised by that. So if I feed Gemini the URL and ask me what is in the text it will summarise the text. Note that summaries of text are something LLMs do pretty well. They are bad at synthesis, but you can be more confident in their summaries - albeit they can still make errors and get the stress of the article wrong. The summary was interesting, but what I wanted was the text itself, to see what it said, so:

Thirdly, if you ask Gemini for the contents of a paragraph, it will do its best to count paragraphs, and then return the actual text and translate it. Here there is no synthesis. It is literally returning information from the Google cache and translating it. It is doing what Google search and Google Translate do. And at this point you may be letting the hype get to you. AIs are just tools. Machine Translation is an AI application. For many years MT was one of the big goals of AI. It happens to be one that has been largely cracked by big data, but when you use MT you are using an AI. When I use Gemini for the translation I am essentially using the same AI. Search is less obviously an AI than MT, but there are AI aspects there too.

So in summary, if you know what you are doing with any tool, you can make it do something useful. If someone dresses up a screwdriver as a oojmaflip that can do anything from grinding coffee to writing novels, you might want to be wary of its ability to run a coffee shop in a library, but you can still use it to unscrew your cupboard doors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make her a reporter, which is what you claimed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Arguing with help of an AI tool is not reliable reasoning. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About how many words of coverage to the subject are in the mentioned article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly 160 words in the section "Diagana ist von Beruf 100-m-Laufer" that is about the subject (one other athlete was mentioned at the end). Plus there is some prose at the beginning about Diagana and Said Gilani. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is plainly false! There are indeed 162 words (in English) after (and including) the header, but it is a blatant untruth to characterize it as "one other athlete was mentioned at the end" when in fact 30 words are about the translator and another 70 comprise Gilani's "mention" at the end. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting the words in the source language German, not English, so I don't understand this comparison. The article is about Diagana and Gilani, and in this case Gilani's quote is brought up as a direct contrast to Diagana so it is descriptive of Diagana in a negative sense. --Habst (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In German it is 156 words, including the header, with 29 about the reporter and 69 about Gilani. But sure, you "don't understand this comparison".
None of that coverage is directly of Diagana, so does not count at all anyway, but additionally it is all non-independent, primary quotes so unusable for that reason too.
He simply coped better with the humidity than Gilani, who lamented the climate: "[quote about Gilani's thoughts on the heat, nothing about Diagana]" But they were so happy to be there. Gilani was competing for the second time after London 2017. "[quote about Gilani's training and feelings about representing his country, nothing about Diagana]," said Gilani.

You've repeatedly been outright dishonest in your characterization of this source, including alleging @Sirfurboy's direct translation was an AI "hallucination" that "does not align with [your] reading of the source." This is tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said many times before, I have great respect for you and don't understand why using words like "dishonest" is at all necessary and isn't assuming good faith which I have always displayed to you because I respect your contributions. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, news coverage with analysis is typically considered secondary coverage. --Habst (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed there were 160 words in a section "about Diagana" with just a "mention of one other athlete at the end", when 70 of those words are in fact quoting a different athlete talking about his own experience, and another 30 are about the translator.
You claimed and apparently continue to claim that Sirfurboy's AI translation of the article "doesn't align with your reading" and that there are issues without how the AI "frames" the story, despite my direct translation of the full text unequivocally matching the two bulleted paragraphs from the AI. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are only brought up in relation to the article subject which is the athlete. The AI translation above, which is only two bullet points, doesn't align with the source text (see comments about paragraph numbers and missing sentences above) and it's very problematic to be relying on AI output to assess notability without verifying that output first. --Habst (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue struggling against the concept of "direct coverage"? The article subject is not Diagana, it is a human interest story on two athletes who didn't do well in their race. But even if it was a story on only Diagana, She is currently completing her master's degree in Geneva, works as an interpreter in Doha, and translates for the RHEINPFALZ newspaper. and a couple quotes from Gilani about Gilani are in no way direct coverage of Diagana and do not contribute to SIGCOV.
Claiming that
Alpha Diagana [is] from the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where the 25-year-old lives and trains daily in the capital Nouakchott.
He does nothing else, he tells in French to Salma Zougar (23) from Morocco, who is currently doing her master's in Geneva, working as an interpreter in Doha, and translates for RHEINPFALZ. He simply wants to get better. We don't mean this disrespectfully: Diagana was the slowest sprinter in Doha, 12.30 seconds. A personal best. He coped better with the humidity than Gilani.
"doesn't align" with
Alpha Diagana from the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where the 25-year-old lives and trains in the capital Nouakchott. He does nothing else, he tells the Moroccan Salma Zougar (23) in French. She is currently completing her master's degree in Geneva, works as an interpreter in Doha, and translates for the RHEINPFALZ newspaper. He simply wants to get better. This is not meant disrespectfully: Diagana was the slowest sprinter in Doha, running 12.30 seconds. A personal best. He simply coped better with the humidity than Gilani
is just disruptive IDHT at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the source found by Habst, which provides multiple sentences of independent coverage of this subject, we have just enough WP:SIGCOV for a narrow WP:GNG pass. Let'srun (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, you know GNG requires multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV, and N requires sustained coverage... How does this subject meet that? He doesn't meet NATH criteria so there's no presumption of further coverage even if the Rheinpfalz piece was SIGCOV, which it definitely is not:
[paragraph header: Diagana is a professional 100-meter runner] Or Alpha Diagana from the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where the 25-year-old lives and trains in the capital Nouakchott. He does nothing else, he tells the Moroccan Salma Zougar (23) in French. She is currently completing her master's degree in Geneva, works as an interpreter in Doha, and translates for the RHEINPFALZ newspaper. He simply wants to get better. This is not meant disrespectfully: Diagana was the slowest sprinter in Doha, running 12.30 seconds. A personal best. He simply coped better with the humidity than Gilani, [quote from Gilani]
My suspicions above were correct: the only secondary content on Diagana (bolded) is what Habst already put into the stub, with the exception that, as should be plainly evident from the translation, His lifestyle was contrasted with that of a Rheinpfalz reporter, who seemed busier but was unable to focus on one goal like Diagana had. is egregious OR. Everything else on Diagana is relating what he said/felt or first-person observations.
BTW I accessed this by figuring out Habst's evasive comments about "an app on mobile" referred to the specific Die Rheinpfalz app, which I downloaded and indeed allows you to read the paywalled content. I don't know why that was so hard to divulge or why the above ~90 words, 1/3 of which are about the translator, couldn't be pasted. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP @Sirfurboy here's the relevant text directly from [Google translation of] the source. JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry that an editor chose to waste everyone’s time in this fashion. Simply quoting the relevant parts would have been fair dealing and not a copy vio, or even just summarising what they say. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, I have great respect for your contributions. I don't see how anything I am doing here here is a waste of time. There's more of the coverage in the Die Rheinpfalz article pertaining to Diagana than quoted above; for one, the entire article is about two people, so when they're discussed as a group that is just as pertaining to Diagana as the above sentences. Also, a few things like how he dealt with the humidity weren't put into the WP article but are in the Rheinpfalz article. --Habst (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I got Gemini to provide me. Thanks for the verification. Confirming my delete opinion below. Meanwhile: Sirfurboy, I don't mean to be accusatory, but this sounds an awful lot like a hallucination is clearly tendentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, as I've said before I have a lot of respect for your edits. How was that statement tendentious? I think that the AI output has hallucinations, not your comments or your usage of it which I understand were in good faith; and I agree WP:AGF is important, but it doesn't apply to artificial intelligence because it's not a person. We don't have to assume the good faith of AI tools. --Habst (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is tendentious because you must surely have known, having read the source, that I had posted an exact translation of what was in the source. Your evasiveness about the relevant text in the source also appears tendentious. Most of us are trying to analyse sources to decide if a page meets notability policy and guidelines. Are you? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that evaluating the subject is the conversation we should be having; not one about AI or other editors' behavior. I think that the Die Rheinpfalz piece provides enough significant coverage of the subject to justify a P&G-based keep !vote in the context of his World Championships qualification. It's available free of cost or via subscription for anyone else to decide for themselves and would much rather talk about those disagreements than anything else.

You never pasted an exact translation the original article; only some snippets that it seems to me were in the Google search results preview text. I still don't even understand how Perplexity AI could have even had access to the source text given that it couldn't use an app? --Habst (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we shouldn't talk about AI but here you are asking again? My full answer is above. The text comes from Gemini, which is Google's LLM. As I explained, the text was extracted from Googles cache. We can't use the usual techniques to view Google cache directly because the page is hidden from the public access to the cache, but we know Google has the full page cache (and the fact it is hidden confirms this). Asking Gemini to return the contents of the article thus merely extracted the information from the cache, and then, gratuitously, added the machine translation. Note that I said I also had the full text in German too.
The analysis of the text is above. All the source gives us is his age, where he lives and trains, and that he was the slowest sprinter in Doha with a time of 12.30 seconds. Clearly not significant coverage. That we are still talking about this source reveals the general paucity of sources. It is this and nothing else. The page should not be kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other independent sources as well like World Athletics and Tilastopaja. Also the Die Rheinpfalz article has other information as well, like how he dealt with the heat and how athletics is his only profession. --Habst (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all discussed above. Database sources do not demonstrate notability, and the extra text you mention is, of course, in the text I posted that you claimed not to recognise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using large language models to verify notability, even indirectly via reading a paywalled article (that isn't even paywalled), is not a good precedent to set. I don't have the original text with me to reference right now but I did take issue with the way AI framed the article above. Even state-of-the-art AI models often hallucinate and their output always needs to be verified, which was never done in this case by a human with the original article. --Habst (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me! Yes, we wouldn't want to do that. LLMs verifying notability? That would be stupid. Who did that?

Drop this line or else take it somewhere where it is relevant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He simply coped better with the humidity than Gilani" is not encyclopedic whatsoever, and his statement that he "does nothing else" is not independent and shouldn't even be construed to mean it's his "only profession". JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I could agree with this and wouldn't object a change removing or rephrasing those details. --Habst (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My analysis of the source provided by Habst is above. It is an article about how last placers have to give an interview, and had a lot of fun, but it is primary and not independent in that all the information about the subject is gained from that required interview. Neither is it SIGCOV, and - in any case - multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the analysis was done by an AI, and I'm pretty sure it was an AI hallucination as I don't understand the technical process by which Perplexity AI could have access to the source text. --Habst (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, go ahead and post up what you have for paragraphs 5-7 and I'll translate that for you. It will, I think, accord with the source text that I merely extracted using the AI as a technique. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Habst; and as stated above; AI is not reliable. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You rather missed the confirmation and discussion that the text is confirmed to be exactly what I said it was, and not SIGCOV for that exact reason. Also, do please have a read of WP:HOUND. Your last 3 edits (2 different replies here, and this: [2]) and some others, do seem pointedly directed at me. I'm sure it is all meant in good faith, but reading that guideline will help avoid any potential misunderstandings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing significant about any of it. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 World Athletics Championships – Men's 100 metres where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG with no SIGCOV; the source added by Habst is interview-based and has minimal independence (if any). Frank Anchor 16:13, 28 May 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.