Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual girlfriend

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. Wizardman 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual girlfriend

Arguments NOT to Delete

Should not be deleted, an important new emerging market in the field of Ai, robotics, human/technology relationship. I think its very important Virtual Girlfriend & Virtual Boyfriend have their own unique article.

I believe that this is an emerging technology and that the companies leading this revolution should all be granted a fair mention. These companies include Aritifial Life, the makers of V-Girl & V-Boy, Lhandslide Studios, the makers of Kari Virtual Girlfriend and Sergio Virtual Boyfriend, and CyberPunk Software, the makers of Virtual Woman. You won't find any University working on this technology, granted, but the Ai technology that is being designed by these companies may very well lead to intelligent cyborgs and robots who will someday give the lonely some companionship. Its very short sighted to delete this article in my opinion. As a person who is very involved in virtual girlfriends, love dolls, and virtual companionship I can definately say that there is a 'movement' taking place in this field. People need to be aware of cornerstones of this market. Part of the reason there may not be enough source material is because this is a brand new field that is currently developing. It is a new facet in the human/technology equation. I see it my perogative to make issue with the deletion of such an important facet of an emerging paradigm shift. - Shineling

Actually, it is not a brand new field that is currently developing. Virtual Woman has been out since 1987, according to it's article on Wikipedia. My college roommate had a version of it that ran in DOS which I thought was older than that, but I'll defer to the referenced entry here as opposed to my shaky memory. Since then I've seen quite a few such programs, (such as Lulu or even Microsoft's N.U.D.E.). Most of them were more like chatbots, with none of them making much of a splash. The remaining programs listed in the article seem like newer, non notable variations on those, not "the most notable" in an "emerging field" to quote an earlier Revision. The Japanese Dating Sims seem much more popular and upcoming these days. Also, I see that you reinserted all the software listings and much of the program information on Kari, despite the consensus from the other editors that it should be removed: "You can hold real conversations with her ...the more you talk with her, the more she understands, and the more she grows. Kari's strengths lie in complex pattern and word relationship matching. It can be a great tool for lonely men who need that one-to-one connection". Intentional or unintentional, it's just flat out marketing and not acceptable on Wikipedia. I think the almost immediate reinsertion of these kinds of claims in the article shows the problem with keeping it. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to Delete

Delete does not assert notability; lacks references; seems to promote a product ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once I removed the spurious marketing jargon for the software Kari there is almost nothing left to this article, and that piece of software is not notable (no long history, no significant mention in the press, no proof of popularity, not original to the field, etc.). Seems like a back door attempt to get a mention/marketing link into Wikipedia. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with artificial human companion while the references to specific products should be removed (unless one becomes clearly significant), the concept itself is perhaps of interest, and something that I personally have seen mentioned before (for instance, discussion of whether robots could replace human females. Perhaps though it could be moved to virtual companion. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the stub virtual companion should be moved to the fuller Artificial human companion. Also, removing the product references, while a good idea, leaves us with an article with just two (unsourced) sentences, except for a link to an article which simply refers to the deleted products again; recreating the original problem. Even the note (Peter Plantec's Virtual Humans) has very little if any relevance to this subject...I'm not sure why it is there at all. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above (I had not realized the other article existed). Theshibboleth (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial human companion as a subset of a more broad, more comprehensive article. I have already boldly merged virtual companion to the former. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The guy that created the article just reintroduced his original text. Isn't this not very wise? ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That absolutely needs to be reverted. While I like to give new Wikipedia editors the benefit of the doubt, this article appears to be simply being used as a promotional vehicle, as I noted above. The parts that aren't being used for advertisment are largely factually incorrect. That's why I'm worried about simply merging it into another article and am supporting a full delete. I think a merge would just give the person involved a new place to reinsert the same claims and promotional links, despite an obvious consensus against that. We would simply be moving the problem to a new set of editors. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is nothing more than product spam. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (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.