Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google.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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  03:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Google.ai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a division, does not meet corporate notability. Recommend delete/merge/redirect to Google.

Comment: I am not changing this to a redirect unilaterally, because community discussion is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google.ai is a project within Google and many of their project's have individual pages, such as the related Google Brain project. AI will grow in importance. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The references given are not independent. If a separate article for the division is in order, it should be supported with independent reliable sources about the division.  I suggest that editors who want this article kept add independent reliable sources while this AFD is running.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and WP:NOT a project announcement board, even for large corporations. — kashmiri  TALK  21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Google as a plausible source term that will preserve whatever small bit of useful information the article has should it become notable in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there seem to be enough sources to satisfy notability now, TechCrunch Financial Times Reuters Science Mag - yes it is recent, but the coverage was widespread and multi-faceted, discussing industry wide implications for Amazon and Apple - that seems more then enough to satisfy WP:GNG Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like standard news reporting on IT products. In IT, even minor features get plenty of online mentions. E.g., search for "web clipboard" (a minor feature in Google Docs). — kashmiri  TALK  08:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe standard, but not typical: Google.ai aims to make state of the art AI advances accessible to everyone. The Transhumanist 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was browsing, and googled "state-of-the-art ai". Google.ai was the second hit in the results (#16 on DuckDuckGoComment It looks like standard news reporting on IT products. In IT, even minor features get plenty of).  A couple more down the list was a TechCrunch article on it. So I looked it up on Wikipedia, which is how I wound up here. When something is in the news as prominently as this topic is, people are going to look it up on Wikipedia, which has very broad coverage on Google, spanning dozens of articles. See Outline of Google for a near comprehensive list of them. Google.ai looks like it may be a hotbed of Google activity, similar to how Google X was. Note that Google.ai is not just a division, it is also a website, sort of like Google Labs was. Let's stay on top of this development and provide the coverage our readers have come to expect from Wikipedia. Implied in the reports so far, there will be lots of forthcoming news from and about this division of Google. I think the article should be kept and expanded. The Transhumanist 02:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Google being notable because it comes up on Google? Like in WP:GOOGLEHITS? Because "there will be lots of news" sounds like you expected Wikipedia to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — kashmiri  TALK  21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I think this should be closed now OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment expanding on my redirect !vote from above: yes there is reliable coverage, but can the limited coverage that exists be fit reasonably in the main Google article without the need for a separate article? I say yes. Like most tech products, there is more buzz than is likely justified at such an early stage because they have a great marketing department (it is Google), but having this product/service as a separate article so early in its development makes about as much sense as having an iPhone article in 2002 when the NYT ran this article. This is a very early stage concept, and letting it have its own article at this point when it can be in the main article doesn't make sense at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the "keep" !votes address the policy issue – i.e., why in this instance Wikipedia should serve as a product announcement board for a newly started commercial project. Where do we strike balance between reflecting media buzz and the permanent encyclopaedic value that Wikipedia strives to achieve? — kashmiri  TALK  12:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I just did a google search, and I can see articles on Google ai from The Guardian, CNET, Techcrunch. Certainly seems noteworthy for its own article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because it is in the news? — kashmiri  TALK  21:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please can subsequent !votes address Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTNEWS.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Many articles covering this topic from industry sources like TechCrunch and CNET, in a major development for the entire industry. Artificial Intelligence is an emerging area of noteworthy research and Google's new arm focused on this area is similarly noteworthy, as Google is a significant technology company. Even if this arm was to be subsequently disbanded, it would still be somewhat noteworthy as an attempt made in this area.  However, the article itself is sparse and could use more detail.  173.239.207.50 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2017 (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.