Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Friendly artificial intelligence

I recommend that this deletion discussion be reorganized into a combination of the survey itself with !votes and a discussion, into which the walls of comments can be moved. At least the walls of comments are labeled as such, but they distract from trying to determine whether the !votes form a WP:CONSENSUS. I can reorganize if desired. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I think you reorganizing would help clarify the flow of this AfD page greatly. -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   02:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't express an opinion either way, but will say that the above structure will not pose a problem for any admin that is experienced at closing discussions. Really, it is pretty calm and reasonably formatted, even if done so in a somewhat unorthodox way.  I would be more afraid of causing drama over reformatting, rather than the closer's ability to read it.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be reformatted a lot more than this discussion does. Or better yet, wikified. Concerning this discussion, there are two questions we need to answer: 1) Does the concept "Friendly AI" exist? and 2) Is it notable? The Transhumanist 02:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is WP:PSCI, and no, respectively. See (all, really) the comments above (diff) and I just provided evidence to back it up. -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reformatting would be a Pandora's box, and is unnecessary. It's pretty easy to follow what's going on. BMK (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing the titles from "Comment" to "Oppose" is confusing, however. There is nothing to oppose, it is a discussion, not an up or down vote. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is agreeable, and that part has been removed from my comments to help with clarity. Please note, however, that no one was ever voting and that isn't indicated by the threads in question. -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (OP) Whoever is reformatting, please avoid double counting the votes.131.114.88.192 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh: The entire discussion is a mess. I'd recommend just cot'ing the whole thing and starting a new discussion section.  Each person should be encouraged to state their own case and to avoid making a long chain of back-and-forth dialogue with others (yes, I'm sure you all find it fascinating to argue with each other, but it's rather hard to read).  If anyone does this, please remember to notify everyone who commented above so their positions can be included.  -- N  Y  Kevin   21:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't how we do it. AFD isn't a vote, it is a discussion, weighing the merits of each position against policy.  Reducing the discussion and including only the "keep" or "delete" portion is completely counter to policy and would make it impossible for an admin to close properly.  Doing so is actually against policy, as refactoring someone else's comments.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. AfD is not a vote.  But neither is it a "proper" discussion.  The ultimate goal of any XfD is to produce a rough consensus, and that works best when replies are limited.  Long chains of replies usually go nowhere and are profoundly difficult to interpret.  The closing admin will either ignore them or just close the whole mess as "no consensus" because it's too hard to read.  Using  to get a discussion back on track is not contrary to any policy I'm aware of as it does not remove the comments from the page, nor does it alter their content.  Indeed, this usage is so common that a separate template called hat exists just for that purpose.  -- N  Y  Kevin   17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No decent admin would do that, or it would go to review. We close much more complicated things regularly and know what to count and what to discount.  It isn't as big of a deal as you make it.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE - I did move this section to the talk page, as that is where administrative discussion (rather than merits) should have started and it was getting a bit long. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)