Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibe coding

Add links
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 snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) Launchballer 00:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe coding

[edit]

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

Vibe coding (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)

This article is based on only a handful of sources, primarily on a single tweet by the person who invented the term a month ago, or articles that regurgitate the tweet (like the Times of India article cited 5 times in the article). This is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, this article has been a target for blogspam promoters and advertising of LLM products. Of the seven references, two are unreliable (WP:RSPTWITTER and WP:FORBESCON), and there are doubts about the reliability of WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Absolutely keep. This has now appeared in the New York Times and is now listed by Merriam-Webster as a newly trending jargon: while a neologism, it is relevant for Wikipedia. Repeater-reclaim (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: per above. The Mirriam-Webster listing alone settles it. Barte (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Merge or Delete: While this is a great argument for why Vibe Coding should be included in wiktionary, I don't see why this wouldn't just be a section of Prompt engineering. I think the fact that it is such a novel concept that it doesn't have a well-documented name (Merriam-Webster is one of the least-respected major dictionaries, despite it being one of the most well-known) should tell us that it's not relevant enough to have an article. I'm sure this will be worth revisiting once this becomes a more significant phenomena, but by that point I anticipate it won't be called vibe coding. Metzger411 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It has now been mentioned in Forbes [1] too 103.163.91.138 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely keep article, as Vibe Coding is a thing now and where better to describe it than here?
      However, I would delete this Forbes comment, as Forbes has been pay-to-play for at least a decade and is more of a credibility-suck than a credibility-booster. Joe Wiki (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not prompt engineering. You don't need to engineer prompts to vibe code. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sure, being a target for blogspammer and promo material should not be a reason for deletion, by that logic we might as well delete the article on search-engine optimization and phishing as well. Coming back to the more legitimate reasons for deletion, I see atleast six highly reliable sources, a NYT article (which imo is about as RS as it gets), a ArsTechnica article (which is a pretty reliable for tech articles), a Tech Crunch article (by a author who does not appear to have a conflict of interest with the product), a Gaurdian article, a Laptop Mag article, a 404 media article (which tbf I cannot access) and a Merriam Webster entry. This is above and beyond the kind of notability that is typically required for most tech articles.
In addition, regarding the claim of "only a single tweet", that unfortunately how tech trends go. To bring up a similar(ish) example, DOM clobbering, started out as a term used by a WP:SME in a blogpost before it started being used by almost everyone in browser security. I see this case as being similar, AI coding is not a new thing or a new concept, a notable WP:SME, (Karpathy) has called that not-new-thing "vibe coding" and the rest of the industry has run with it. That does not invalidate the fact that the concept is notable and a article is still needed about the topic regardless of what we want to call it. Sohom (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep. Four news articles directly focused on vibe coding written by staff journalists in sources listed as WP:GREL on WP:RSP: Ars Technica (x2, AI section), New York Times (Tech section of News, not op-ed), The Observer (News not Opinion). With these sources alone the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus satisfies WP:GNG. If the article has been a target of blogspam or advertising, that's not a reason for deletion as we can remove the offending material.AndyGordon (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean everything here is accurate, why is this being deleted? I found this on my own searching for the term after learning it earlier this morning and this article is in line with what I’d expect to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8301:5ED0:101F:A4B3:4E9:9320 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vibe coding, introduced in February 2025, represents a transformative AI-assisted coding paradigm. Its rapid adoption (25% of YC W25) and Merriam-Webster recognition demonstrate notability.
OpenAI claims that 95% of software will be AI assisted by the end of 2025
Major outlets like NYT and Ars Technica have provided significant coverage. Its impact on development democratization and productivity is key. This warrants a distinct article beyond prompt engineering due to its unique nature. Let's not continue Wikipedia's inept precedent with emerging topics Ourtown2 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

I've read through the discussion and wanted to share why I think vibe coding deserves its own article rather than being merged into Prompt Engineering or deleted entirely.

Vibe Coding is a Programming Paradigm, Not Just a Prompting Technique

Prompt engineering is a broad concept that applies to many different fields, from AI art to AI-generated writing and coding. However, Wikipedia does not merge those topics into a single page just because they require structured prompts.

For example:

  • AI Art is its own article because it describes how AI-generated visuals differ from traditional digital art, even though it requires prompt engineering.
  • Vibe coding is the equivalent for AI-assisted programming—it’s about how developers interact with AI to generate, refine, and direct code, making it distinct from general prompt engineering.
  • If visual programming is widely accepted as a programming paradigm, the certainly fits the bill.

The purpose of this article is not to explain how to structure AI prompts for coding—that would belong on the prompt engineering page. Instead, this article focuses on the paradigm shift in how code is being written with AI tools like LLMs.

The Term Has Notable Coverage and Usage

The term "vibe coding" was coined by Andrej Karpathy, a well-known AI researcher and former head of AI at Tesla, and has since been referenced in multiple media outlets. If the concern is that it is a new term, Wikipedia has covered many emerging trends and concepts over time, as long as they have reliable sources.

Wikipedia Documents Emerging Concepts, Not Just Established Ones

The argument that “this should wait until it becomes more mainstream” doesn’t align with how Wikipedia handles emerging phenomena. Many topics start as niche concepts before becoming widespread, and Wikipedia’s role is to document them as they develop rather than waiting for universal adoption. If the term evolves or changes, the article can be updated rather than deleted.

Merging Would Misplace the Topic

Placing vibe coding as a section under Prompt Engineering would be misleading because it is not about structuring prompts to maximize machine learning outputs in general—it is about a specific way of writing code with AI assistance. The current article explains this distinction well.

Conclusion

Vibe coding is a distinct AI-driven programming paradigm with a clear definition, notable sources, and growing discussion in the tech community. While it’s still evolving, that doesn’t mean it should be removed—Wikipedia has always documented emerging ideas as long as they have reliable references.

Keeping this article separate allows it to be expanded and refined over time, rather than being lost within a broader topic where it doesn’t fully fit. --AddisonKnox (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AddisonKnox, please do not use LLMs to generate arguments as you have done here. Thanks, 06:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are my own words, but I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you!
--AddisonKnox (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC) AddisonKnox (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat inclined to believe you, given the recency of this topic, but wow does it look like AI. The headings, bullet points, bold text, em-dashes, the little conclusion for this mini essay that immediately looks out of place compared to the rest of the Talk page... it's all stuff an LLM would do. If you really did write this yourself, I strongly recommend adjusting your writing style or you'll be receiving such comments a lot. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources clearly meet WP:GNG as Sohom Datta and AndyGordon have shown. Skyshiftertalk 06:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Prompt injection was a cybersecurity issue before it had a name. In Sept 2022, Simon Willison coined the term in a blog, and Wikipedia started an article the same month. In tech, blogs & tweets introduce terms before they go mainstream (@Sohom). Same for vibe coding. Karpathy coined it in Feb 2025, but AI-assisted coding was already reshaping coding. Tools like GitHub Copilot & ChatGPT lowered the barrier for non-programmers well before his tweet. Vibe coding has been covered by major, reliable sources (NYT, Ars, Guardian/Observer), including its rise & risks (software reliability, debugging, maintainability). This is broad coverage in reputable sources. Vibe coding meets WP:GNG and WP:N. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even at the time of the nominations, you had way more sources than the tweet, such as Ars Technica, the NYT, and TechCrunch. If blogspam persists, WP:Requests for page protection. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The term seems to be evolving still, so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The more radical definition of neophyte programmers treating generated software as a black box could come to predominate. Park3r (talk) 00:07, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vibe_coding&oldid=1281050137"