Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎ whether to keep or merge and none is likely to emerge out of this discussion given the changing facts of his employment. As there is no scenario in which this is going to be deleted, a merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (  | 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)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not get your argument, the {{ current event}} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO – NirvanaToday t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles. (Separate comment: The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 ( talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
(1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī  TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī  TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb ( talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak merge to OpenAI. Keep redirect and categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per @ Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 ( talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI, and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say there are two camps. 1 is "very significant", which includes this !vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by !vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge. — kashmīrī  TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Removal_of_Sam_Altman&oldid=1186998641"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎ whether to keep or merge and none is likely to emerge out of this discussion given the changing facts of his employment. As there is no scenario in which this is going to be deleted, a merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (  | 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)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not get your argument, the {{ current event}} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO – NirvanaToday t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles. (Separate comment: The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 ( talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
(1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī  TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī  TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb ( talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak merge to OpenAI. Keep redirect and categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per @ Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 ( talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI, and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say there are two camps. 1 is "very significant", which includes this !vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by !vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge. — kashmīrī  TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Removal_of_Sam_Altman&oldid=1186998641"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE