Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaccan-Siamese war
- 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. I am also indefinitely blocking the article creator, Mesbmr6710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for disrupting Wikipedia by creating AI-generated articles with hallucinated content and sources. Sandstein 08:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Malaccan-Siamese war (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)
Unverifiable AI-generated piece full of dubious statements and fake references. Will need WP:TNT to be of any appropriateness for Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD G3. I found this source discussing relations between the two during this time period and the only warfare between the two was a failed punitive expedition c. 1500. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the topic itself is not so blatantly a hoax; it's discussed on page 114 in the linked article. Older sources such as G. E. Marrison in 1949 do describe the engagements as a state of warfare. But the historical sources are scarce in detail, and most of the article as it stands is heavily embellished AI hallucinations, so maybe one could consider it a hoax in that sense. Don't know if that's enough for G3, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I suppose you're right. I missed that part when skimming. I would still consider the article a hoax as written, but not a blatant one as required by G3. I concur with the use of TNT here, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the topic itself is not so blatantly a hoax; it's discussed on page 114 in the linked article. Older sources such as G. E. Marrison in 1949 do describe the engagements as a state of warfare. But the historical sources are scarce in detail, and most of the article as it stands is heavily embellished AI hallucinations, so maybe one could consider it a hoax in that sense. Don't know if that's enough for G3, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per G5, creator is a blocked sockpuppet.The TNT concerns and the apparent generation of fake references elsewhere does not create the impression there is much to save. CMD (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- It turns out there was a mistake in the SPI closure, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unusual, struck, suppose we're back to looking at the sources providing no google hits. CMD (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It turns out there was a mistake in the SPI closure, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:G3, as noted by Compassionate727. Had another look given the G5 was inapplicable, and the sources here seem completely made up. "Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce" is a partial title of an actual book by an Anthony Reid, but as noted it's a partial title and the publication year is wrong. I can't find any hits for the seven subsequent linkless sources aside from this page. Source 9 does exist, but contains none of the names "Tun Hamzah", "Datuk Bongkok", or "Batu Pahat", which it is ostensibly citing. Source 10 also exists, and is on topic, but seems to support none of the cited paragraph and in at least one case (Batu Pahat) say the opposite. Source 11 won't load. Source 12 is source 10, and again doesn't support the cited text. The author is using llm on talkpages, so it seems entirely plausible that this whole thing is also llm-generated, including the references. CMD (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Prose does not appear objective, heavily-embellished. hundenvonPG (talk) 19:21, 3 January 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.