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.
Comment One under 30-edit account, an IP, and one other account agreeing on the year's page≠consensus. Also we post news events, not promotional spam about AI, on year pages. Nate•(
chatter)20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are more than two dozen articles just like this (see
Template:C21 year in topic) for many facets of 2023. Given how AI has played a very significant role in 2023, which basically every reliable source on the planet has mentioned, I say we keep it!
TheAwesomeAtom (
talk)
17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I severely fail to understand the argument that this topic is promotional. Indeed, the items included in the article's current revision are disproportionately new model releases from megacorps; there is no mention of any open projects whatsoever! I cannot say it forcefully enough: it's bad. However, these are problems with the article, not the topic. If it is really that bad, then we can just
BLAR it to
2023 and deal with it later. I don't think you are all thinking this through very thoroughly. jp×g03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I didn't know we suddenly decided to waive
WP:PROMO when it comes to AI, and I have yet to see one negative item about AI in this article to balance things out or even move the other side of the scale. In its current form, it's a PR
WP:COATRACK. Nate•(
chatter)02:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Heavily affected by
recency bias. Can be revived at a later date when we have context of how AI developments panned out/which were important. Right now there are too many marketers hyping the subject up
Delete: by necessity, nearly everything cited on the page is
WP:PRIMARY: as others have pointed out, it's too soon to write a properly analytical article which would understand the impact of these events, and so be more than
WP:NOTNEWS. However, it would be good to see the article rewritten in a few years when that is no longer so.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
21:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and because no one has considered the nominator's suggestion to Merge the article. There's also a mention of Redirecting it which might be a solution for those arguing that it is simply TOOSOON for this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with above points made on recency bias and reading like a promo article for various AI companies; I think its clear when you compare this page's overly detailed material with other {topic in 2023} articles. Agree with user above, redirect is not necessary while a merge would be difficult and would result in way too detailed information about various companies on the AI page. A merge could occur for those with articles such as the ChatGPT (which takes up so much of the article) and Bard entries, although the information here is already restated on those main articles.
Yeoutie (
talk)
21:50, 5 June 2023 (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.
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.
Comment One under 30-edit account, an IP, and one other account agreeing on the year's page≠consensus. Also we post news events, not promotional spam about AI, on year pages. Nate•(
chatter)20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are more than two dozen articles just like this (see
Template:C21 year in topic) for many facets of 2023. Given how AI has played a very significant role in 2023, which basically every reliable source on the planet has mentioned, I say we keep it!
TheAwesomeAtom (
talk)
17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I severely fail to understand the argument that this topic is promotional. Indeed, the items included in the article's current revision are disproportionately new model releases from megacorps; there is no mention of any open projects whatsoever! I cannot say it forcefully enough: it's bad. However, these are problems with the article, not the topic. If it is really that bad, then we can just
BLAR it to
2023 and deal with it later. I don't think you are all thinking this through very thoroughly. jp×g03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I didn't know we suddenly decided to waive
WP:PROMO when it comes to AI, and I have yet to see one negative item about AI in this article to balance things out or even move the other side of the scale. In its current form, it's a PR
WP:COATRACK. Nate•(
chatter)02:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Heavily affected by
recency bias. Can be revived at a later date when we have context of how AI developments panned out/which were important. Right now there are too many marketers hyping the subject up
Delete: by necessity, nearly everything cited on the page is
WP:PRIMARY: as others have pointed out, it's too soon to write a properly analytical article which would understand the impact of these events, and so be more than
WP:NOTNEWS. However, it would be good to see the article rewritten in a few years when that is no longer so.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
21:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and because no one has considered the nominator's suggestion to Merge the article. There's also a mention of Redirecting it which might be a solution for those arguing that it is simply TOOSOON for this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with above points made on recency bias and reading like a promo article for various AI companies; I think its clear when you compare this page's overly detailed material with other {topic in 2023} articles. Agree with user above, redirect is not necessary while a merge would be difficult and would result in way too detailed information about various companies on the AI page. A merge could occur for those with articles such as the ChatGPT (which takes up so much of the article) and Bard entries, although the information here is already restated on those main articles.
Yeoutie (
talk)
21:50, 5 June 2023 (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.