Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence


 * 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 redirect to Eric Horvitz. Whether to merge stuff from history is up to editors.  Sandstein  08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient evidence for the importance of this particular report  DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect if there's a suitable target. The "coverage" is clearly from a promotional push, and is therefore churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Eric Horvitz who seems the promoter. The Horvitz article just has a promotional quote about it. W Nowicki (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no connection to Horvitz; I created the article b/c the sources include what I presume to be independent analysis, and my reading of WP:ORGDEPTH was that any amount of unattributed analysis by the independent publication makes the coverage non-trivial; if I'm wrong, then the article can be deleted but I'll probably ask at the WP:ORGDEPTH page for a modification to be more clear. For example, the nytimes 2014 source states "The project, hosted by the university, is unusual not just because of its duration but because it seeks to track the effects of these technologies as they reshape the roles played by human beings in a broad range of endeavors." The csmonitor source states "As it turns out, there are already groups dedicated to tackling these ethical concerns." Of course, for all I know these "insights" may have been fed to them by the organization, but that's true of any article. I don't know what level of non-triviality is usually required to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Eric Horvitz; the subject does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. The RS listed can be used in the target article to expand the section. With a redirect, anything useful could be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2016 (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.