Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. ✗plicit 01:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in AI[edit]

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

2023 in AI (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)

Doesn’t merit an article, no references. Perhaps merge with AI? Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Delete. This subject is particularly affected by recentism and WP:CRYSTAL. The article indiscriminately pushes recent contributions to generative AI as being important, when in reality it is WP:TOOSOON to make conclusions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This article feels both pointless and promotional. Dawnbails (talk) 21:44, 29 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×g 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rationale to delete this article is WP:TOOSOON. It cannot be said yet what contributions to AI in 2023 were important, aside from the obvious one (GPT-4). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 11:58, 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
Carolina Heart (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disappointed to see so much negativity here, and frankly ignorance, about what is an extremely important topic. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted delete but I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, all relevant Wikipedia policy like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:DELAY and WP:TOOSOON says to wait to confirm if such an article is needed (and to draftify it in the meantime). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Carolina Fox and UndercoverClassicist. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirect is pointless because this is not a search term. Merge is also pointless as this is a list of news and there is no content to merge. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with UndercoverClassicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2023_in_AI

Leave a Reply