Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast.ai


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has been significantly improved by the page creator and other helpful editors (earlier and now), the content and the tone is more neutral and appropriate. The article still needs to be worked upon for WP:POV, focusing more on the article's subject rather than the founders.(non-admin closure) Zoodino (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fast.ai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article seems to be completely written in a promotional tone. 6 out of 10 references are to the group's website itself. No significant coverage and notability. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm the original author. I can assure you that I have no conflict of interest whatsoever and didn't intend to write this in a promotional tone (?). I did take the MOOC myself and was browsing Jeremy Howards's page when I noticed fast.ai didn't have its own page. I thought it would be appropriate for it to have a page on WP and thought it would be a useful contribution. I've been working mainly on the Dutch WP in the past - maybe the rules for inclusion are slightly different there? Is there anything I can do to improve the article? I included the links to the group's website because I thought references would be good :| but I can ofcourse take them out if that's better. Paritalo (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to take some "promotional" language out, and now only 2 out of 6 references refer to their own page. Not sure how else to improve it - would welcome some guidance. Is the topic/page by itself wikipedia-worthy? Is the trouble just the language? I'd be happy to get some guidance to avoid this in the future... I was kind of hoping to create more articles on AI/ML-related topics, but now I'm not so sure anymore :( Paritalo (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Paritalo, the notability criteria say that notability is determined based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You're correct that references are good, but for notability, some references are better than others. Refs to the company's website are not considered independent. Published books and major newspapers are usually good, if the subject is covered in some detail. I think that your strongest references right now are from the Verge and ZDNet — they're recognized, reliable, independent news sources in this topic ara, and the articles are about fast.ai specifically. If you can find another couple like that, it would be helpful. Check out the Google Books search results — that's often a useful way to find published sources.
 * For the promotional language, the section on #Masks4All is pretty obviously promotional. Phrases like "Jeremy Howard has been a prominent advocate for masks" are too strong — Anthony Fauci is a "prominent advocate" for masks, Jeremy Howard is not. "Information regarding the science behind the efficacy of masks during the pandemic can be found through fast.ai in 22 different languages" is also unhelpful — there are lots of information sources about the efficacy of masks, and encouraging readers to use fast.ai rather than public health sites is obviously promotional for the company. I see that another editor has already taken that section out, while I was writing this response. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your explanations Toughpigs, that's very helpful! I'll definitely keep this in mind in the future for other articles. I'll try to see if the fast.ai page can be improved with more neutral information / external resources. Thanks again, I was kind of surprised by the deletion nomination but I see the point now. Paritalo (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is unreferenced content in the Lead that is not elaborated upon in the body of the article, and in the body there are unreferenced quotes from the founders of the company. David notMD (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi David notMD, the reference for the quote is, which was taken out because there were too many references to their own webpage. Should it be reinserted? While you wrote your comment, I was working on the article, restructering and creating an additional section on the MOOC. What other content do you see that is unreferenced? Paritalo (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Answered on your Talk page (AfDs are not the place for dialog with other editors). David notMD (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An article shouldn't be deleted because of errors that can easily be handled through normal editing. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep While promotional tone, there are significant references to this website., , , come to mind. In fact, there's even some criticism of the website in these articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Including the verge article present in the article as is, there are five sources supporting notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Business Insider, the Verge and ZDnet are legit sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the previously cited sources, a cursory search reveals coverage from FastCompany, MIT Tech Review, etc. It was even cited (though just a passing mention) by the NY Times. While no book was written about it, at least three (UNCTAD's The Impact of Rapid Technological Change on Sustainable Development; Subramanian's Deep Learning with PyTorch; and Panetto et al's On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems) have discussed the subject. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2020 (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.