Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undetectable.ai

Undetectable.ai

[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)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, no WP:CORPDEPTH upon closer inspection, it is clearly a WP:FAILCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondust534 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the nominator here is User:Moondust534.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of text and references were excised in the fortnight prior to this AfD nomination (old version here). While the likes of OK Magazine are unlikely to provide much for WP:CORPDEPTH, others, including paywalled journal articles, may provide more for evaluation. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added a bunch of sources back. A simple Google Search seems to demonstrate notability as well as copy cat companies. Here are some significant sources: https://radaronline.com/p/alan-from-mighty-med-condemns-ai-cheats-then-explains-how-to-cheat-with-ai/ https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/ https://knewz.com/new-ai-mimics-real-writing-no-one-can-tell/ https://www.techtudo.com.br/dicas-e-tutoriais/2023/10/undetectableai-como-saber-se-um-texto-foi-escrito-pelo-chatgpt-edsoftwares.ghtml https://gritdaily.com/devan-leos-talks-about-diversity-and-inclusion-in-ai/

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that User talk:Moondust534 is a new user, who has been in trouble for inappropriate closures before. This company is very controversial, and is the first I could find that created an adversarial AI technology, and seems the concept will be an important note in AI history. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting that @Moondust534 seems to be a new user with nine edits, and appears to have vandalized the page, removing a myriad of sources before flagging this page for deletion. It seems clear the user does not have a coherent grasp on WP policy, and furthermore, @Moondust534 seems to have intentionally removed sources before nominating, as noted by @AllyD

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Who vandalized the page? I do not agree. Wikipedia rules say to remove sources that do not meet the RS requirements before nomination the page. Moondust534 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BBC article and Bartneck study provide significant coverage. This is sufficient for a Keep. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on existing coverage such as Scoop, Hollywood Life, THIS and BBC.Shinadamina (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With doubts being cast on nominator and the only editor arguing for Delete also being very new to the project, I'd like to hear from some experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources like BBC, OK! Magazine, Knews, and independent research seem to meet sigcov and seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH given the research and media coverage. I did a search on Google Scholar and found new research of the software:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sayim-Aktay/publication/381110349_THE_RISK_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_IN_EDUCATION_AND_AI_DETECTION_TOOLS/links/665d6979479366623a3a6415/THE-RISK-OF-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-IN-EDUCATION-AND-AI-DETECTION-TOOLS.pdf
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02537176241247934
3. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GKMC-03-2024-0133/full/html Also seems they were even written about in a book recently too: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1TM0EQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=undetectable.ai&ots=Xl-pKUarG6&sig=Ib2-scy64I2IF-QxJsQhb_QH9Us#v=onepage&q=undetectable.ai&f=false I see sources in Portuguese and from the Philipenes, UK, and US media which all make a strong case for notability. I look at edit history as well, as others previously mentioned, found it strange the sources were in fact deleted without proper explanation just before page nominated for AfD

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is bluntly promotional. Hollywood Life, Scoop Moondust534 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, none of the sources are related to the category to demonstrate notability. WP:CORPTRIV WP:ORGTRIV There is no independent in-depth coverage of the company. The main source reveled by Google search is https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/comments/1g3198i/undetectable_ai_review_is_it_legit/

Self-made "academic research", not reflected in any media looks beyond doubtful. Sources added about accolades or impact do not provide in-depth coverage or any vendee of receiving any industry awards or recognition.

"Usage and impact"

In November 2023, EarthWeb used Undetectable.ai alongside GPTZero to analyze celebrity apology statements.thechainsaw.com
https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/
In January 2024, SourceFed announced plans to use Undetectable.ai for AI content detection. sourcefed.com
A January 2024 report listed Undetectable AI as the 35th most visited AI software in 2023 out of 150 analyzed.https://www.flexos.work/learn/generative-ai-top-150

Moondust534 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the edition section that got my attention. The section about the criminal records was removed several times. The creator of the article seems to be blocked 7 times, with sock puppet accounts. The no account edits made specifically on this page by 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 are questionable.

cur prev 13:10, 9 April 2024 Comintell talk contribs m 11,165 bytes −1,489 Reverted 1 edit by Sesame119 (talk) to last revision by Comintell undo thank Tags: Twinkle Undo
curprev 03:47, 9 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,654 bytes 1,489 I created a controversies section, partially taken from an existing page on actor Devan Leos who is also the CMO of Undetectable AI using sources that were already approved for that page. I also added to this the criminal history of the founder and CEO Christian Perry and provided the court record as a source.undothank Tag: Reverted
- cur prev 20:00, 8 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,115 bytes 950 →Reception and analysis: I added a subsection on two of the senior executives involved with this company including its founder. It is notable that two executive officers have a history of felonious behavior. I presented this information in an unbiased way and it is simply to inform the public about the background of two people deeply involved in the development. undo thank

Moondust534 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also got hot a hostile message on my page demanding me to withdraw the nomination from 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470. While nomination is a fair discussion, and everyone is open to contribute. A similar message, written in the same style by the sock puppet Comintell can be found on the page of editor Sesame119 who raised concerns about the criminal records of the individuals mentioned in the article. Moondust534 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moondust, please contribute in good faith. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:F5E6:A8A5:A9C1:45E5 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a company and an eponymous product, delivered as a web service. The company is marginal, but in favour of it, there are sources like [1] which gives us something to say about the company, but which may fail WP:ORGIND. If this page were just about the company, I would look at that more deeply. However what this page is really about is the product, and per WP:NPRODUCT the company can appropriately be treated in the page of the notable project - which will be particularly sensible as long as this remains their only notable product. The product must also have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Passing mentions will not do, and neither will primary sources. But we have enough. For instance Taloni, Scorcia, & Giannaccare (2024) Modern threats in academia: evaluating plagiarism and artificial intelligence detection scores of ChatGPT. [2], which paper has 12 citations and is an excellent source. Likewise Lebrun, Temtsin, Vonasch & Bartneck, (2024). Detecting the corruption of online questionnaires by artificial intelligence. [[3]] The BBC and other news sources add to the picture, even if they can be challenged. I don't see the point in going through them laboriously. The research papers alone carry the product over the line. As for the arguments about the page being promotional - deletion is not for cleanup. But in any follow on clean up, be careful not to remove good independent reliable secondary sources. The trimming prior to nomination appears to have been too much, and it would have been better to leave the artucle unchanged before nomination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom, delete. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]