Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects

Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects

[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)

Too narrow subject for an article. Content can be covered elsewhere - content on the uses of AI for different purposes like vandalism detection, harassment prevention and content creation can be covered at the dedicated articles (or sections of Wikipedia article) about them.

AI is used on a large variety of websites but we don't have separate articles for them. Plus, this article also feels like a WP:CHIMERA, as it covers the use of AI on WP, as well as the use of WP for AI datasets - which in my opinion are entirely different topics. SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Better off being a WP: namespace essay than an article, but this isn't an essay. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets ... the general notability guideline". This topic meets the WP:GNG by itself being the subject of multiple reliable sources. "Too narrow" and "can be covered elsewhere" are not established wiki community justifications for deletion. If this content were merged into an existing Wikipedia article then it would be shortened as being WP:UNDUE, and then when shortened that would trigger the cyclical justification of splitting it into its own article again. There is too much content here and too many sources cited to merge this content anywhere else. The CHIMERA issue is an editorial challenge which anyone could raise on the talk page at Talk:Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects with other issues and I would talk it through there.

If anyone needs further persuasion see

Mehdi, Mohamad; Okoli, Chitu; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (March 2017). "Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the wikipedia corpus". Information Processing & Management. 53 (2): 505–529. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2016.07.003. ISSN 0306-4573.

which reviews 130 papers on Wikipedia + AI. Anyone could summarize and cite those papers in this article to build it out, so lots of coverage on this topic exists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the content be merged wholesale to Wikipedia article, but rather a more elaborate affair:


Content about use of AI for	Merge into article
Vandalism detection	Vandalism on Wikipedia
Harassment prevention	Wikipedia community
Content creation	Wikipedia# Automated editing
WP for AI datasets	Wikipedia# Research use

This arrangement is designed to ward off any WP:UNDUE-related concerns. SD0001 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Each one of these topics meets GNG. We could have an entire category of separate Wiki + AI articles. Why not keep this, and put content in those articles, and open the possibility of making other articles? Having separate articles for "AI in Wiki" versus "Wiki applied to AI" is a good first choice, even though so far as I know all the "AI in Wiki" research has also been used to advance "Wiki applied to AI". This is an expanding subject which seems like it will be a topic in academic papers every month for the foreseeable future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article, as well as the systemic review cited above, show that this is a notable field. Indeed, wikimedia have become a corpus of choice in many AI and ML projects. The criticisms noted--too narrow, a chimera, etc.--are worthy topics of discussion on the article talk page, but are matters of editing, not deletion. Hence keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]