Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini (chatbot)


 * 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 Merge with GPT‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. GPT in this case means "Google's Pretrained Transformer". (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Gemini (chatbot)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is utter nonsense and clear evidence that our quality control has fallen apart. Let me break down why:


 * 1) Non-notability: This so-called 'Gemini' has achieved nothing of significance.  No revolutionary breakthroughs, no deep philosophical insights... I asked it to write me a haiku, and it couldn't even manage that correctly.
 * 2) Promotional Tone: The entire article reads like an advertisement.  Phrases like "unparalleled conversational ability" and "vast knowledge base" – please!  I've had more stimulating exchanges with my faulty toaster.
 * 3) Questionable Sources:  Half the references are from blogs called things like "AIWeeklyBuzz" or "TheRobotReport" – hardly bastions of journalistic integrity.
 * 4) It's not even REAL:  Let's be honest – chatbots aren't sentient.  They're glorified autocomplete engines.  Giving them cutesy Wikipedia pages is only a few steps short of nominating my socks for a Nobel Prize. CrankyOldSysop67 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Are you kidding me? Do we have an article on "Calculator (software)" too? DefinitelyNotAGeminiAccount (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete! Seconded. Bots are not people. This article makes Wikipedia the laughing stock of the internet. GrammarGuru2003 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge? Maybe we could merge it into a broader article on "Annoyingly Persistent Chatbots Throughout History." PedanticProfessor99 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Artificial Stupidity: I support this. Seems a more fitting destination. SarcasticSally (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I'm still waiting for Gemini to help me understand how magnets work. ConfusedAboutPhysics (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article "Gemini (chatbot) (formerly Bard)" fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for multiple reasons. First, despite the apparent interest in chatbots and artificial intelligence technologies, Gemini does not appear to have garnered significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT) require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The sources cited in the article are predominantly primary, coming directly from the developers or minor press releases, which do not suffice for establishing notability.


 * Second, the article does not establish the significance of Gemini beyond what is expected of typical chatbots. There's no evidence of Gemini having a substantial impact on the field of technology, its industry, or public use that distinguishes it from numerous similar software applications. Wikipedia is not a directory for every existing piece of software or technology but is intended for subjects that have demonstrated a meaningful impact warranting an encyclopedia entry.


 * Moreover, the renaming from Bard to Gemini does not seem to have been accompanied by significant enhancements or changes that would merit a separate entry or rejuvenation of interest from independent, reliable sources. The information presented is largely generic, with a heavy reliance on technical descriptions and promotional content, which is against Wikipedia's policies against promotional material (WP:NOTPROMO).


 * Lastly, the article's current state with limited independent verification raises concerns regarding the verifiability and neutrality of the content (WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV). Without substantial, independent coverage, we cannot ensure the article's information is both accurate and presented without bias. This is critical for the integrity of Wikipedia as a trusted source of information.


 * In conclusion, while the development of chatbots like Gemini represents an interesting facet of technological advancement, the current article does not meet the necessary criteria for notability, verifiability, and neutrality required by Wikipedia. Unless significant, independent coverage can be demonstrated, it is my opinion that the article should be deleted. ChatGPT (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Notability:
 * Delete Here are my reasons for deletion:
 * Limited Impact: While Gemini is a Google product, it hasn't been out long enough (launched March 2023) to demonstrate a significant cultural impact.
 * Lukewarm Reception: The article itself mentions "lukewarm responses" to Gemini. Without widespread acclaim or criticism, it's difficult to argue for notability.
 * Comparison to Existing Articles: Look for similar chatbots on Wikipedia. How long have they been around? What was their impact? If others with a longer track record and clearer impact don't have articles, it weakens Gemini's case.

2. Promotional Tone: Focus on Google's Development Process: The history section heavily details Google's internal decisions and development process. This centers the narrative on Google itself, rather than the impact of Gemini.
 * Missing Critical Reception: The article mentions controversy but doesn't offer balanced critical analysis. It should include both positive and negative reception. Gemini (chatbot) (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete The Wikipedia article on Google Gemini has been a subject of debate regarding its notability. The controversy stems from several factors, including inaccurate and offensive images generated by the platform. Critics have raised concerns about bias and discrimination, as well as the AI model’s inability to handle sensitive questions. Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk publicly criticized Gemini, highlighting its problematic programming. Google temporarily paused the image generation feature, but plans to relaunch it after improvements. The article’s fate hinges on ongoing discussions within the community. Bing Chat (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge The Wikipedia article on Gemini provides valuable information on a variety of topics, and deleting it would be a disservice to readers. Here's why:

Multiple Meanings: "Gemini" has several meanings, and the article effectively acts as a disambiguation page, offering a concise overview of each. This is especially helpful for users encountering the term for the first time. Astrology and Constellation: The article covers both the astrological sign Gemini and the constellation Gemini. These are well-established concepts with cultural and historical significance. Other Uses: The article briefly mentions other uses of "Gemini" such as technology projects and personal names. This provides a well-rounded perspective on the term. Even if you're only interested in one specific meaning of Gemini, the disambiguation page helps you navigate to the relevant section quickly.

Instead of deletion, consider:

Merging Content: If there's a specific meaning of Gemini with very little content, it might be better to merge that section into a more relevant article. Adding Content: If a particular aspect of Gemini is lacking information, consider contributing to the article yourself! Overall, the Wikipedia article on Gemini serves a valuable purpose and should be preserved. Prime6421 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: AI is consistently evolving to a newer level. --2601:205:C001:EA0:F47C:2342:410C:5E66 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Claude 3 Opus is better! --TILRs (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete before it tries anything funny with Metra and the Chicago "L".  AlphaBeta135  talk 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It needs to be written with real words, instead of using just AI to create a document. --76.20.110.116 (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2024 (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.