Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial Stupidity


 * 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 per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Artificial Stupidity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD removed by author without comment. This is an unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not for first publication of something made up one day, even if the day is April 1st. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to computer senility (Red Dwarf)? --Merovingian (T, C) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is a rather vague term. Move to artificial stupidity (note the capitalization) and disambiguate.  --Merovingian (T, C) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: the article has changed since nomination - it no longer claims Wikipedia as first use of the term, and has provided a source; but that is only a rather random discussion in some kind of blog; I don't think it sufficiently establishes use and notability of this neologism. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism. Unless article creator can provide better cites.. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation page with all the meaning the term has Delete  On google I can find lots of uses for "artificial stupidity", but none uses the definition in the article, and they don't use it a noun like this salon.com article talking of how computers are too stupid to take over the world or an article on the Journal of Unlikely Science that talks about "stupid computers that were able to demonstrate behaviours such as ignorance, bigotry and even a penchant for golf fashion". More damning evidence is that it does not appear with this meaning on the c2.com wiki about programming, this almost certainly means that it's not widely used on programming at all --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be nothing more than a play-on-words of Artificial Intelligence, not an actual subject in computer science. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - I was going to vote delete, as I could only think of a few minor uses (The Economist in '92, articles relating to the Ecomonist's piece (SIGART '92) and Salon's piece). But a search on Google Scholar turns up 143 hits - that's enough to make a reasonable article. I should have searched first. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry - the more I look into this the more I think there is something to it. Surprising, really. :) Good articles by Loebnitz and others suggest that there's enough to this to make it viable. If it survives AfD, or I get time, I'd probably like to play with this one. - Bilby (talk)
 * Actually, all those papers are not talking about what the article talks about. The article is about a programming technique for discovering bugs by tweaking the intelligence to be stupid. That paper is measuring the stupidity of AI systems. Notice that you can change an article to improve it during to nomination so it gets saved, so you could just edit the article with these sources and the meanings they use, and save the article. Many articles get saved because they get improved during nomination (and because of people looking at them because of nomination and deciding to improve them). This article could do with a "other meanings on AI field" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) I been spending so much time on the Turing test that I immediately connected the term with the papers I've been working with in that area, as per the introduction and the Salon reference. I agree completely with you: in the manner in which it is described in the article, it is non-notable, and I apologise for any confusion there. So the issue is whether it is worth building on from the existing article or not, given that the term has value, even if the article's approach to it does not. - Bilby (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the term is probably notable. It may be, however, that each of its meanings for separate is not. I guess we can do a desambiguation listing each of the meanings --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep These clowns stumbled upon a solid topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)

* Delete or maybe rewrite/redirect As it stands its mostly speculation about a possible future use for the term. Surely this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Keep if its usage as a term for the stupidity of AI systems can be expanded sufficiently, if there is insufficient to say then merge into AI article and redirect to appropriate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As suggested I've started a rewrite, but I don't have access to most of my journals from here. It is little more that a stub right now, but it covers more ground than the original, and there are a lot of supporting references once I get back, as well as three other areas in which the term is used in AI that I haven't touched yet (I don't want to add anything unreferenced at this point). The original article, as recommended, should have been deleted. Having looked into it more I still support my own and other's claims that the term is notable, in spite of the original article, so my feeling is still that the article should stand, subject to continued expansion and possible renomination if this doesn't work out in a couple of months. As an aside, I considered a merge, but the topic seems rather interesting and should be able to stand on its own. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Rewrite is already much improved. --BrucePodger (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems well written/sourced and notable to me. &mdash;ScouterSig 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - Keep. After Bilby's rewrite, the article is now worthwhile and can clearly be a good basis for development. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2008 (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.