Talk:Lota House

}}

No significant LLM usage detected, article not eligible for speedy delete

I evaluated this article for possible speedy delete under WP:G15 but determined this wasn't applicable because article was created in 2014, long before general LLM usage began happening. To remove possible LLM usage, I've reverted the article to an earlier pre-LLM version. For any other issues related to the article's notability or editing, bring them up for discussion here. The article can also be brought up for an WP:AFD if desired, but I see no ground for speedy delete under any criteria. SouthernNights (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I removed the section that read like LLM wording, seeing that it was added much earlier. It didn't add anything to the article and wasn't directly supported by the ref used. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I confirm that I created that article (and many others) from the Queensland Heritage Register, which is available under CC-BY licence as stated in the article Attribution. These articles were mostly created in the 2014-5 period, except for subsequent additions to the heritage register, for which I have created articles from time to time over the years. The text of the Queensland Heritage Register articles is written by the staff in the relevant government department (drawing on the nomination,historians, architects, etc) which is reviewed by the Queensland Heritage Council (a government body with other historians, architects, etc) for acceptance in the heritage register. Because of the legal protection conferred by heritage listed (which can often by strongly opposed by the building's owner), the process is very thorough and takes some time (many months or years). As noted above, the time period makes LLM usage impossible and the processes involved would not iinclude the use of AI-based content. I am personally strongly opposed to the use of LLM-generated content in Wikipedia (and for most other purposes). Kerry (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)