Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DirectIA
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 delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DirectIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've just declined the spam speedy on this. It is rather spammy, and it could probably go under that, but after considering the comments on the talk page, I would rather that the community reaches a decision on the notability of the product.
If it's not notable, then the spam doesn't matter; if it's notable but spammy, we can address that. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way on the notability GedUK 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spammy to say the least. Reads like a spec sheet or press release for the product. Likely a conflict of interest - pretty sure the original author works for the MASA Group (he wrote that one too). The company article is also up for AfD. (I originally tagged this for speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Whether or not it is "revolutionary" is not for us at Wikipedia to decide. It must be recognized through independent, reliable sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment from the author Dear reviewers, thanks for your comments. To confirm an hypothesis that I have seen formulated several times, yes I do work for MASA Group and DirectIA is a MASA Group technology. However, as Todtanis rightly pointed out, it is a revolutionary AI middleware indeed and therefore I thought it could bring some fresh news concerning AI state-of-the-art to Wikipedia, going beyond the more traditional topics such as finite-state machines, automated planning, etc. Ideally, I think some material from the DirectIA article should be reused in an article about "situated AI" that would broaden the scope of the topic considered (see the article for a definition of this expression and the cited references, for more). However, being neither a specialist of this field nor having time for doing this job correctly, I decided to just add this raw information, as is. I do agree, it sounds a bit like a brochure since it was inspired by material I produced at MASA Group. (BTW, there is currently a translation of the DirectIA article on the French-speaking Wikipédia.) Concerning the MASA Group company article on Wikipedia, I am also the author of it, and thought it would enrich the "company database" of the encyclopaedia. You do not seem to agree, but IMHO this page is 100% about plain facts and does not contain ad-like material. Of course, I would understand another viewpoint (notability in particular). In any case, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and still learning its ways. I am available for further discussion (next week). Thanks for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBourguignon (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, David, but as you have now seen, Wikipedia editors take a dim view of employees posting articles abuot their company or its products, as it is usually seen as spam. That is very much the case here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is deceptive for Wikipedia to publish articles to the general public claiming that they are neutrally written when really they are written by their subjects. ThemFromSpace 04:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but with a question. Does anyone have ready access to the cited sources to determine whether they specifically mention DirectIA as opposed to, for example, simply "situated AI," "subsumption architectures" in general? I agree that the article is spammy and its purpose is promotional: however, that's not in itself always sufficient reason for deletion. If the cited references actually devote substantial attention to DirectIA in particular, then the topic probably meets WP:GNG and the solution is possibly not deletion but rather cleaning up the article to remove any promotional material and/or tone. On the other hand, if the cited sources have nothing to say specifically about DirectIA, then the article ought to be deleted. --RrburkeekrubrR 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment from the author. Thanks again to you all for your time and consideration. In order to address the issues previously mentioned, I created a page on the situated approach to artificial intelligence, mentioning in one line DirectIA and MASA Group (of course, I can remove this citation if this is not acceptable). Concerning the important topic of situated AI, I realised it is in fact spread out in several articles in Wikipedia, namely Situated, Nouvelle AI, and Behavior-based AI, all of them being just "stubs"... Therefore, I would be glad to merge them into the one I just created, its name corresponding to the terminology used in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Finally, I have of course no objections against the deletion of both DirectIA and MASA Group articles from the English- and French-speaking Wikipedia. (NB: Maybe it could be also necessary to delete the image which was uploaded to illustrate those articles?) In any case, please accept my apologies for not paying enough attention to the encyclopedia guidelines. Of course, I am available for further discussion on any of those topics. Have a good day. DavidBourguignon (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2010 (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.