Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lists useful for AI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of Lists useful for AI was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Please Check out my User Page where I have created an explanation about the article and justified it... I have also raised a discussion on the Village Pump. SudarshanP 09:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What?! RickK 08:51, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - --Cyprus2k1 09:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure I want to know what mindset created this one. Average Earthman 09:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I actually think this is kind of a cool idea (it's clear that the reason they would be of interest to AI is that they allow computers to look up the shape of a word's referent, substituting in some degree for lack of knowledge of the world), but it would have more point on Wiktionary. Abstain. - Mustafaa 11:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Unless someone convinces me that "useful for AI" is too subjective. Posiduck 12:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Ehm...The articles listed aren't even lists. And "useful" is POV. And "AI" means artificial intelligence and is an entirely empty expression unless filled with meaning in a specific framework. And this sort of information is best structured using _categories_. — David Remahl 12:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Nobody has the slightest clue how an AI is going to work, anyway, so to state that this list is useful is therefore someone's guess, and thus original research and POV. Average Earthman 17:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: misnamed, POV, and WP is not a vocabulary guide. User is welcome to contribute prose on language acquisition and comprehension in AI. Gazpacho 13:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Whether it is a list or not is left to you to decide. Whether it is useful or not can be judged after a few days of expansion I guess... It is not about shapes... It is about all that info we can choose to provide an AI program. Dont you think classifying it as useless is an even more non neutral POV ;-). Reg the Categories I am not sure... pls give more info and some pointers... I am not very particular about the name anything will do... my intent is what matters. Any suggestions for a more meaningful name? Also please suggest a suitable categorySudarshanP
    • Any information in Wikipedia can be fed to an AI program. Wikipedia is not an AI research project, though. You can download a copy of the database and work on, if you want. For categories, see: Wikipedia:Categorization. — David Remahl 13:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Who is Al, and why does he find such weird things useful? Delete as bizarre and private (yes, I know it's AI, but this is a private vision of what would be "useful" for an AI and thus original research, POV, and assorted other crimes against the collective). Geogre 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If it was my personal Vision, and all I wanted was *free* storage space on a server, i would have used a 1GB of the GMail drive instead of doing Wikipedia. And if creating such absurd things does not turn into a frenzy among wikipedians, I find no use in having such a page at all. I am better off using my PC's hard disk ;-). And if more people get involved, it is not a personal vision anyway ;-) else I would prefer doing personal research. If i thought others should not use the resultant data and it be my personal research why would i have opened it???SudarshanP
Well, I meant that playfully, rather than snappishly. At any rate, it is still somewhat a call to a new or esoteric branch of investigation, so, to put it in an analogy that I can understand, I think of reports on political rallying cries or something: pure reports of what others have done are NPOV, but anything attempting to gather people for an ongoing activity is not. At least that's how it seems to me. Geogre 00:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • What about a category like Arificial Intelligence > Intelligence Amplification > A Repository of some common sense information for BOTs SudarshanP
  • I am currently downloading the mediawiki and the db. I shall not spider the DB and would not have done it even if it was permitted ;-) SudarshanP
  • I realize that Wikipedia is not an AI research project. But my overall idea is to use the visitors of WP to add simple commonsense info (if they feel like) so that the knowledge accumulates. These could be AI researchers themselves... There is a strong correlation of things interesting to AI and humans. So i was just wondering if I could continue. Else nvr mind. SudarshanP
    • I suggest that you describe your intentions (in some detail) on your user page and request that people comment on your ideas on your talk page. You can also post a message on the village pump discussion board and request comments. — David Remahl 15:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure I will do that. Will get back soon. SudarshanP
  • Delete. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Improv 18:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • What about a List of topics related to artificial intelligence? (Perhaps slightly more selective than this current list.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool!. This reminds me of some really nice code I saw once... hmm, ... [1] . Wikisyntax isn't too hard to read for software either, if you keep stuff in this format. I'd support keeping this list, though perhaps in the wikipedia namespace, rather than the main namespace. (Or transwiki to meta, but that makes things trickier)

  • Delete. Original research. This is a proposal for a taxonomy of concepts. It may be useful for the author's thought experiment, but it's useless for Wikipedia. Gwalla | Talk 04:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi I am building a description of what this is all about on my home page as per David's suggestion... Will shortly put it up on the Village Pump. Guess we can discuss it there and continue voting after that. I again repeat that I have no problem putting it else where. And I guess the community is best at deciding where it should be put. SudarshanP
  • keep, i'd like to see this article improve and be renamed. But the idea is encyclopedic for sure. siroχo 08:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you consider this encyclopaedic...It is _not_ intended to be a list of Artificial Intelligence topics. It is intended to be a list of articles / concepts that an AI program kan learn from. Since the ultimate goal of AI (according to most views) is to resemble the human mind, the entire Wikipedia is "useful for AI", just not today's limited AIs. — David Remahl 11:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Thats why i'd like to see it renamed. siroχo 10:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Useless list. Delete. List of commonly known materials, List of externally visible animal parts, and List of Externally visible plant parts also appear to be deletion candidates. - Mike Rosoft 09:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 09:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I plan to delete this article and move it to Shall I do it? SudarshanP 14:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Very very mixed mind about this. The purpose of the article and the reasoning involved seem not only unexceptionable to me, but useful, and a strong Keep. The article itself, by Wikipedia canons, appears to be, as far as I can judge, "original research", and an almost equally strong Delete. Friendly suggestion: (1) find some authority for this approach to AI — I seem to have a vague recollection of having read something like this once before somewhere — and turn that into an article. (2) Once that's done, append the list scheme to it, in a separate article, as an AI‑apprehensible taxonomy. — Bill 22:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a testbed for original AI research, if you can even call it that. -- Cyrius| 04:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting original research. Fascinating to think of using a wiki as an input device for intelligence 'amplification.' But not a good article. Chrisvls 21:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

footer, keep at bottom.

Suggestion to deleter: If consensus becomes to delete, move the article(s) in question to the authors' namespace instead. They might still be required for discussion at village pump etc. Kim Bruning 22:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move to user subpage. anthony 警告 01:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.