Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepSeek (chatbot)

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 keep‎. Consensus is that the bot has enough independent sources to have a standalone article, separate from the parent company. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeepSeek (chatbot)

[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)

Requesting that this be redirected to DeepSeek which was created since November 2024. That version is more detailed than this. Mekomo (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean keep. I think it makes sense to have separate articles for the company and the product, just like we have for OpenAI and ChatGPT and for Anthropic and Claude (language model). The company DeepSeek does more than just produce a chatbot app, so I think it's probably a good idea to have two separate articles — one about the company, and one containing more detailed information about one of its main products. There's currently a lot of overlap in the two articles' scope and there's definitely cleanup that needs to be done, but the article was only created a few hours ago so I don't see why we shouldn't give time to fix those issues. MCE89 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:MCE89's reasoning. If not kept, at least merge in to DeepSeek. Sushidude21! (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. I created a separate article on the chatbot because it gained notability to warrant a separate article. I also said on edit summary "Note: I'm not creating a duplicate article. You can make this article's words different then the DeepSeek article's words." And you're nominating for "duplication". RealStranger43286 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. They are two very distinct subjects. This article is about the chatbot, and the other about the company. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the DeepSeek article, I am ok splitting off an article for the chatbot since the current article is getting too big. I do expect a serious effort to be made in cleaning up both articles to account for this split. Imcdc Contact 12:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article will be highly repetitive with the DeepSeek article. It can be part of the DeepSeek article. No need for a separate article for this. Cfls (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Draftify - Seems highly repetitive as per Cfls. The two subjects are interdependent.

in future, if there is further coverage of deepseek beyond its initial blockbuster introduction of its chatbot, might make sense to make an article for the chatbot. for now, deepseek company is known only for main blockbuster product. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. - Amigao (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see the value in splitting off the chatbot specific information to a new article... although, it might be better to rename it to the name of the specific model, akin to the OpenAI equivalent articles on, for example, OpenAI o1 or GPT-4o. This article could be renamed (moved) to DeepSeek-R1 for example. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. Alenoach (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support MCE89's view. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The chatbot has become notable separately from the company. Much of the behavior, such as censorship, is attributable to the chatbot itself as it is run on DeepSeek's servers, not the underlying DeepSeek-R1 model. Also, much of what normal people know about DeepSeek is purely that chatbot.

One day I might split out the release history to a separate page, but for now, the page on DeepSeek serves as a repository of information about the company itself and the models it released. pony in a strange land (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company and the product should be separate articles.

Geanard (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: DeepSeek (the company) is notable independent of DeepSeek (the chatbot), and vice versa. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough RS sources exist for the chatbot itself, and it is expected to go only bigger from here. It passes WP: NOTABILITY. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is more reasonable to separate them into two articles. Nytheris (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2025 (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.