Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project
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 keep JoshuaZ 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project
The article describes (in too-glowing terms) a chatterbot that was (is?) little more than a celebrity-themed ELIZA: just another non-notable Web toy. (For context, see Triumph PC's page about their other "Persona-Bots", and try out "Saucy Jacky", their Jack-the-Ripper-themed nonsense chatterbot.) Delete as non-notable and possibly no-longer-existent. --Quuxplusone 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Essentially non-notable, although there are lots of lazy bloggers who think it's witty to go there, have a conversation and transcribe it into their blog. Not more than one reputable arm's-length third party source found (I think the Austin link on their site is a kind of blog too). I think the whole thing can go under the entry at List of chatterbots. Accounting4Taste 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; I added a feature from the Evening Standard (a major London newspaper), and the other article from the Austin Chronicle isn't a blog, that's multiple non-trivial independent sources, so this passes notability guidelines. Masaruemoto 05:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP- notable, links prove that, especially in light of the subject. Maybe some editing, but it seems worthy of a page unto itself.JJJ999 08:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator: Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but the official site doesn't allow visitors to converse with the chatterbot, right? I'm not saying it's a hoax, of course, but it seems awkward to have an article on a non-notable software program where the only evidence of its existence is a few lines of transcript from a couple of newspaper columns. AI programs in particular attract inflated claims; see the article on Racter for a historical example. If we remove all the unverifiable stuff from the JLAIP article, is anything left? Compare to Triumph PC's Saucy Jacky,[1] which is equally non-notable, does verifiably exist, is verifiably not much of a chatterbot, and (rightly) has no Wikipedia article. --Quuxplusone 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The link was incorrect, it took me 10 seconds to fix it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:WEB before continuing to claim this is "non-notable" as there are three articles from reliable sources about this project. Also, everything in this article is verifiable, so there is nothing to remove. By Wikipedia standards it is clearly notable. (I notice you added a "citation needed" tag to a statement which has been easily verifiable since January by looking at the Austin Chronicle reference. Such tags are for unsourced claims only). Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with List of chatterbots. Absolutely trivial Doc Strange 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment; There are three reliable published works which confirm the notability of this project. I don't believe the people suggesting "delete" understand the notability requirements, which state, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No reason to merge either, it is a short article but it can be expanded, and I am trying to find the comments Yoko Ono made about this project in an interview several years ago, which would add more notability. Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
