Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personality Forge
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. --Michael Snow 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personality Forge
Non-notable web community; few Google hits. Nehwyn 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- As far as AI is concerned, PF is by far the biggest web community, with 27438 members. A link to it is provided in the already existing article internet bot. PF has recently teamed up with Hanson Robotics to provide the artificial intelligence personality for an Albert-Einstein-like android at WIRED NEXTFEST 2006. If Hanson is a major player in robotics, as wiki's article about it suggests, PF is a key player in AI. stammer
Note - The above comment is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Yes. "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" 1. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -> ALICE's creator and PF's competitor Richard Wallace lists PF among a handful of "major online bot communities" + in his Salon article about the Loebner Prize John Sundman refers to Benj Adams and the Personality Forge as key players. "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" -> PF-based bots Brother Jerome by Peter Cole and Bildgesmythe by Patti Roberts have won silver and bronze respectively at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. NB: PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."-> The site content is proprietary and hence it cannot be independently distributed, but the joint venture with Hanson Robotics demonstrates its relevance to current applied AI endeavours. IMO Point 2. alone should settle the issue. -- Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete nn. Mukadderat 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I invite those recommending deletion to state their case in the light of my reply to Nehwyin's post.Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Alexa ranking of 646 580. Was not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (sorry, Stammer, but a brief mention in a single magazine article does not make it the subject of the article. Neither does occurrence in a list of links on a website.) As for the awards, that argument would be applicable if we were discussing deletion of Brother Jerome or Bildgesmythe, but we're not. Finally, this may be a vanity article, as Stammer's only Wikipedia contribution at the time of this AfD was the creation of this article, and he is currently the only one opposing its deletion. —Psychonaut 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would like to stress that I did not make a keep recommendation, since I realise that this would be inappropriate for the article's author. I regard it however as legitimate to argue in favour of the article. I may also repeat that PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. Roughly speaking, their intelligence is provided by PF. It would be pretty strange to have articles about certain bots without an article about the AI engine behind them. Stammer 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Possibly. But since the PF bots in question seemingly aren't notable enough to have their own articles, what makes you think that the engine behind the PF bots is? —Psychonaut 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Who said that Brother Jerome and Bildgesmythe aren't notable enough to have their own articles? They got silver and bronze at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. Are you suggesting that I add articles devoted to them? I may well do it, but that would not make much sense without an article about the AI engine that they share and about the development model that spawned them. -- Stammer 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- No one said that. I was presuming their non-notability on the basis of their absence from Wikipedia. Of course, if you want some more rigorous evidence, go ahead and create the articles and see if they survive. At any rate, your using this argument in support of retaing the Personality Forge article is still flawed; it's entirely possible for an entity but not its ancestors to be notable. That's why, for example, there is an article on Stanislaw Lem but not on his father Samuel Lem. —Psychonaut 08:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Who said that Brother Jerome and Bildgesmythe aren't notable enough to have their own articles? They got silver and bronze at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. Are you suggesting that I add articles devoted to them? I may well do it, but that would not make much sense without an article about the AI engine that they share and about the development model that spawned them. -- Stammer 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly. But since the PF bots in question seemingly aren't notable enough to have their own articles, what makes you think that the engine behind the PF bots is? —Psychonaut 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can see your point there. --Nehwyn 07:55, 28 October 2006 (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.
