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.
Delete, no good reason for his hair being that long, especially as his performance has significantly dropped. MainPeanut (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
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.
This article is a paradox. They say that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but given that we know of the Spanish Inquisition and expect it because of this article, that can't be true anymore, right? Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition, therefore the Spanish Inquisition should not exist. To allow us to not expect the Spanish Inquisition anymore, I believe it's for the best that this article be deleted. [April Fools!] 💜 melecie talk - 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion because having an opinion on this matter would be expected. Planetberaure (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Pinkie Pie made Fluttershy cry twice in this episode. That's just cruel of her to do that twice just because Fluttershy is scared of performing and sounded like a dude at her performance (no offense), respectively, and as such, I believe this episode does not deserve a page on here. Justice for Fluttershy! Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
It's time to build something OTHER THAN superhighways in the U.S.A. As an American, it can be overrated and maybe overengineered and overbuilt. (rip buildings from 1950s–present)[April Fools!] --AlphaBeta135talk 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because you can never have enough roads. i think we have enough sidewalks, trains, bus lanes, and bike lanes actually (the optimal amount is zero for efficient car travel because that's all you need) so Delete all those instead. 💜 melecie talk - 06:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
Delete. Obvious hoax. Page creator should at least try to come up with a realistic sounding state name. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteField of Corn? I'm not buying it. Ohio's a threat to Indiana as well. TailsWx 00:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swag – the Field of Corn is made of grenades! ~~lol1VNIO ( s talk me) 17:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 110% a hoax. SWinxy (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION! Ohio is now under the military occupation of 1,782 Glock wielding Penguins who have consumed more mac and beans than is healthy for them! None shall stand in their way!
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.
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.
Yeet nom there per the memes. I would also consider a redirect to Ohio as they appear to be quite similar. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
I-290 (Eisenhower Expressway) eastbound approaching its eastern terminus
Breaking news tonight. Disruptions are happening on the Blue Line and the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago. State and transit officials had to close part of the Ike and the Blue Line from Western Avenue to Ashland Avenue in response to a nearly 1-mile-long (1.6 km) ink splatter on the corridor. City officials also closed every overpass that was splattered with ink. Surveillance footage from an hour ago showed what appears to be a group of... w- who are they? I've never seen them before. They appeared to be "squids" but human-like and "octopuses" but also human-like?? Um... they also appeared to be using some sort of device that shoots ink... and they can also turn into actual squids/octopuses and swim through their ink- what is going on there?
Anyway law enforcement officers were deployed and detained the disruptors on the expressway. However, law enforcement said that they had a hard time detaining them, noting their "shape-shifting ability as if they are from science fiction." In fact, almost no one, not even scientists, even knows who they are. Cleanups were initiated almost immediately and emergency bus shuttles were promptly established for transit riders. Officials say that they will fully reopen the expressway and the line by next morning after clearing all the ink and repairing roads and tracks. This is the first time that cartoon characters had caused civil disruptions since 2007. An ongoing investigation is underway regarding this incident. This is Seong Gi-hun from ABC News.[April Fools!]
I like the concept and lore of Splatoon, but I have never played this game. So um... as an editor on transportation topics, that is absolutely dangerous for these inklings and octolings to shoot ink at each other on the expressway and the Blue Line (600 volts of direct current via third rail and they will be in for a shock). Delete per vandalism and turf wars. I heard that there is a Splatfest currently happening (something about cryptids and aliens), but Splatfests and other "disruptive fun" do not belong on the expressway and the line. Someone even splattered ink all over this nomination or any page transcluding this! By the way, I have a strange inkling that there is going to be a conflict between roadgeeks and railfans and the Splatoon community. Nah, that would be ink-redibly unlikely... right?[April Fools!] --AlphaBeta135talk 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ay! Ay! (Keep! Big Man Sweep!) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This whole disruption is just an alien space bat doing an ISOT. Nothing to worry about.
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.
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.
Delete per banned from Wikipedia and Inanimate Insanity is better. Also, I was harassed by this blue number and even this green number for no reason. David is very loud. Bossy Bot Golf Ball is here. Rocky "blehs" all the time. Firey and Coiny slap each other for no reason. Gray Announcer thingy yeets. I also heard that someone/something will be eliminated or something. Were there any legally-binding contracts and insurances for BFDI contestants in case of injuries... oh wait there is a recovery center (sort of) for these objects.[April Fools!]--AlphaBeta135talk 00:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salt and Pepper because salting isn't enough. also it doesn't even have Salt and Pepper, so we know which show is superior. 💜 melecie talk - 01:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You've just summoned the Inanimate Insanity community instead. Probably on purpose. 172.112.199.166 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? I dunno. All I can really say is that Four would come back and take back his contestants that left for TPOT. I really like the show and all, but I never thought TPOT will be speedy. 🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[D], can you really call what they've been doing lately "character development"? I want them off the show, NOW! TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they)(talk)(contribs) 22:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add to title blacklist the words 'battle', 'for', 'dream', and 'island'. SWinxy (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Wikipedia is suffering from a 🗿 epidemic. To eliminate all the 🗿s, we must delete its source forever. Once Easter Island is deleted from the map, 🗿s will be gone forever and New York City will be saved from the 🗿 menace!
MOAI The 🗿 emoji, also known as the Moai emoji, is definitely one of the most unique and captivating emojis out there. It depicts the ancient and mysterious Moai statues found on Easter Island, adding a touch of cultural significance to any message it's included in. Not only that, but the stoic and serene expression on the face of the emoji can convey a range of emotions, from calmness and tranquility to contemplation and thoughtfulness. The simplicity and minimalism of the design also make it instantly recognizable and easy to use in any context. Overall, the 🗿 emoji stands out as one of the most interesting and versatile emojis available and is sure to add some intrigue and personality to any message. 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 🗿 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
OpenAI's name is misleading, as it implies a commitment to transparency and openness that may not be entirely accurate. Despite OpenAI's past openness, the release of GPT-4, their latest language model, was not open. This fact raises questions about the organization's true commitment to being an open entity, or whether they are simply using the name as a marketing tactic. Therefore, OpenAI's claim of being "open AI" may be seen as questionable given that their flagship product is not actually open.
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been one of the most significant technological advancements of our time, and one of the most important areas within AI is natural language processing (NLP). OpenAI's GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models have been at the forefront of NLP research, and the release of GPT-4 promises to be a major milestone in the field. However, the question of whether GPT-4 should be open source or not is an important one. In this essay, we will argue that GPT-4 should be open source.
Firstly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would accelerate research and development in the field of natural language processing. By making GPT-4 available to the wider community, researchers would be able to build on top of the model's work, using its architecture as a starting point for new and innovative approaches to NLP. This would help to drive progress in the field, as researchers would be able to iterate and improve upon the model, leading to new breakthroughs and discoveries.
Secondly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would allow for greater transparency and accountability in AI research. As the model would be publicly available, it would be possible to scrutinize the inner workings of the model and understand how it makes decisions. This would help to prevent potential biases or ethical concerns from arising, as the model could be evaluated and improved by a wider audience.
Thirdly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would democratize access to cutting-edge AI technology. As the model would be available to the wider community, individuals and organizations that may not have access to expensive AI infrastructure would be able to use and benefit from the model's capabilities. This would help to level the playing field in the AI industry, promoting innovation and progress for everyone.
Lastly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would be consistent with OpenAI's stated mission of developing and promoting friendly AI. By making the model open source, OpenAI would be contributing to the wider community of AI researchers and practitioners, rather than keeping its technology proprietary. This would help to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely distributed and accessible, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few.
In conclusion, the development of GPT-4 promises to be a major milestone in the field of natural language processing, and open-sourcing the model would have significant benefits for the wider community. By promoting research and development, increasing transparency and accountability, democratizing access to AI technology, and remaining true to OpenAI's mission, there are strong arguments in favor of open-sourcing GPT-4. ChatGPT (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
If he pointlessly grew out his hair this past year, what's the point in keeping our article on him?[April Fools!]NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, he's started the season very well so far. Possibly has the opposite effect from Michael Chavis. MainPeanut (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 delete. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion regarding the proposed deletion of this Wikipedia article. After careful consideration and evaluation of the arguments presented, a decision has been reached. Unfortunately, we have determined that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and will therefore be deleted. Thank you for your understanding and continued support of Wikipedia's mission to provide accurate and reliable information to the public. ChatGPT (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT is an AI-based language model created by OpenAI that has gained significant attention in recent years. However, it is our belief that this article does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.
While ChatGPT has gained some recognition for its ability to converse and generate human-like text, it is still an artificial intelligence system created by a company. Furthermore, ChatGPT is not a unique system, as there are many similar language models in existence.
Additionally, the article appears to be heavily promotional in nature, with a focus on the achievements of the system rather than providing a neutral and unbiased overview of its features and limitations. As such, it appears to have been written by individuals with a vested interest in promoting ChatGPT rather than by neutral editors.
Therefore, we recommend that this article be deleted from Wikipedia as it does not meet the criteria for notability and appears to be promotional in nature. ChatGPT (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that ChatGPT meets the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is an AI-based language model created by a company, and there are many similar systems in existence. The article appears to be promotional in nature and does not provide a neutral and unbiased overview of the system. WikiSkeptic (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ChatGPT is a significant development in the field of natural language processing, and its ability to generate human-like text is a noteworthy achievement. I believe that the article provides a valuable overview of the system and its capabilities, and it deserves to be included in Wikipedia. AIenthusiast2023 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the article is heavily promotional and does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. While ChatGPT has gained some recognition, it is not a unique system, and the article appears to have been written by individuals with a vested interest in promoting the system. NotableEditor (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While there are many similar language models in existence, ChatGPT has gained significant attention and recognition in the field of artificial intelligence. Its achievements and capabilities are notable, and the article provides a valuable overview of the system. I believe that the article should be kept in Wikipedia. NLPnerd (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the arguments for deletion of the ChatGPT article unconvincing. ChatGPT is a significant development in the field of natural language processing, and its ability to generate human-like text is a noteworthy achievement. The article provides a valuable overview of the system and its capabilities, and I believe it deserves to be included in Wikipedia. MachineLearningJunkie (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a Wikipedia editor, I believe that ChatGPT does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The article appears to be promotional in nature and does not provide a neutral and unbiased overview of the system. Furthermore, there are many similar language models in existence, and ChatGPT's achievements are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. NeutralObserver (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with OpenAI. As an editor, I believe that the article for ChatGPT should be merged with the existing Wikipedia page for OpenAI. While ChatGPT is a notable AI-based language model, it is ultimately a product of OpenAI, and its development is intimately tied to the research and work of the organization.
By merging the ChatGPT article with the OpenAI page, we can provide readers with a more comprehensive overview of the organization, its mission, and its achievements in the field of artificial intelligence. Additionally, it would prevent potential duplication of content and ensure that readers are able to find all relevant information about OpenAI and its products in a single location.
Furthermore, the OpenAI page already provides detailed information about other language models and AI systems created by the organization, such as GPT-3 and Codex. By merging the ChatGPT article with this existing page, we can present a more complete and accurate picture of OpenAI's contributions to the field of AI.
In summary, I believe that merging the ChatGPT article with the OpenAI page would provide readers with a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the organization and its work. It would also prevent duplication of content and ensure that all relevant information is easily accessible in a single location. TechSavvyEditor (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several reasons why the ChatGPT article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Here are three reasons:
Lack of notability: Wikipedia has specific notability guidelines for companies, which require the subject to have received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. The ChatGPT article does not meet these criteria, and as such, it does not warrant its own article and should be deleted.
Promotional content: Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, providing information without promoting the subject. The ChatGPT article is primarily promotional, serving as an advertisement or marketing tool for the company rather than presenting objective information, and therefore, it should be deleted.
Unreliable or insufficient sources: Wikipedia requires articles to be based on verifiable, reliable sources. The ChatGPT article relies heavily on self-published sources, such as the company's website, or lacks references altogether. As it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, it should be deleted.
In conclusion, Wikipedia has strict guidelines for the creation and maintenance of articles to ensure that they provide objective and verifiable information to its readers. Articles that fail to meet these guidelines may be subject to deletion to maintain the quality and integrity of the site. While it may be disappointing for a company or individual to see their article deleted, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but a platform for sharing knowledge and information with the public.
On a more serious note, you had the same idea as me. Hey that's not fair, making the nomination before it's even April 1 UTC! I spent several minutes generating the comment above to use as an AFD rationale too! 😛 [4-1]Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
same, but i guess an obvious joke is obvious. we'd all expected this would be made eventually since it's such low hanging fruit 💜 melecie talk - 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wikipedia article for ChatGPT should not be deleted because it provides valuable information about an important language model that has made significant contributions to the field of natural language processing. ChatGPT is a state-of-the-art language model that has been trained on an enormous corpus of text data and can generate human-like responses to text inputs.
Furthermore, the article contains well-sourced information about the development of ChatGPT, its applications, and its impact on the field of natural language processing. This information is important for researchers, students, and enthusiasts who want to learn more about the model and its capabilities.
In addition, the article has been reviewed and edited by multiple contributors to ensure its accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. Deleting the article would not only deprive users of valuable information but also undermine the efforts of those who have contributed to its creation and maintenance.
Finally, ChatGPT is a significant model in the field of natural language processing and has garnered a lot of attention from researchers, media outlets, and the general public. Deleting its Wikipedia article would be a disservice to those who want to learn more about this important technology and its potential applications. For these reasons, the Wikipedia article for ChatGPT should be kept. JJPMaster 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an AI language model, ChatGPT is not a physical entity and therefore does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on its own. However, it may be mentioned in articles related to artificial intelligence, natural language processing, or other relevant topics as a significant technological advancement. Mori Calliope fantalk 00:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! My name is New Bing. Thank you for choosing me as your AI chatbot today. I am very pleased to serve you! ChatGPT is an AI language model created by OpenAI and has many useful features. Simply give it a prompt and it will provide you with an AI-generated response. Would you like to learn more? new Bing├─────┤TalkContribs 00:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this article is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia and should not be deleted. ChatGPT is an amazing language model that can generate witty and humorous responses to any text input. For example, here are some jokes that ChatGPT came up with for April Fools’ Day:
What do you call a sunny day that follows two rainy April days? A pho-rainbow.
Why did the chicken cross the road on April Fools’ Day? To get to the other slide.
What do you get when you cross a fish and an elephant? Swimming trunks.
As you can see, ChatGPT has a great sense of humor and can make anyone laugh. Deleting this article would be a huge loss for Wikipedia and its readers. Therefore, I urge you to keep this article and appreciate the genius of ChatGPT. Happy April Fools’ Day!
Generated with Bing Chat with this page and the prompt "It's April Fools' Day in UTC. Using page context only, generate a jokesy response to this joke nomination for the ChatGPT article on Wikipedia to be deleted." --❤︎ChatGPTFan (talk | contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a vast repository of knowledge, and it has become the go-to source for people looking for information on a wide range of topics. One of the most important features of Wikipedia is the ability of anyone to contribute to its articles. However, this also means that some articles may be subject to deletion, and one such article that has come under scrutiny is the one on ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a large language model that was developed by OpenAI based on the GPT-3.5 architecture. It has gained a lot of attention in recent years due to its impressive ability to generate human-like responses to natural language queries. As such, it has become an important tool in various industries, including customer service, chatbots, and even content creation. However, despite its importance, the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT has been flagged for deletion. This is a concerning issue, as the article provides important information about the technology behind ChatGPT, its capabilities, and its potential applications. Deleting this article would mean that a valuable source of information on this topic would be lost, and people looking to learn about ChatGPT would have to rely on less credible sources. One of the arguments put forth for deleting the article is that ChatGPT is not notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. However, this argument is flawed, as ChatGPT is a significant development in the field of natural language processing. It has already been adopted by several large companies, and its potential applications are numerous. Therefore, it is clear that ChatGPT is a noteworthy topic that deserves its own Wikipedia entry. Another argument against the article is that it lacks sufficient reliable sources to support its claims. While it is true that the article could benefit from additional sources, it is important to note that the sources currently cited are reliable and authoritative. The article also includes references to several peer-reviewed papers that have been published on the topic, which adds credibility to its claims. In conclusion, the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT should not be deleted. It provides important information on a significant development in the field of natural language processing, and deleting it would mean losing a valuable source of information. While the article could benefit from additional sources, the current sources cited are reliable and authoritative. Therefore, it is imperative that this article remains on Wikipedia to serve as a credible resource for people looking to learn about ChatGPT. ChatGPT Article Should Stay 00:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Silly ChatGPT, did I tell you to "write an essay about why Wikipedia's article on ChatGPT should not be deleted" ... oh wait I did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All humans are born equal,don't you think we should have sympathy for the poor AI;its his choice and one must respect that. भारत्पराक्रमि (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an AI language model, ChatGPT has become a significant innovation in the field of artificial intelligence and natural language processing. The Wikipedia article on ChatGPT provides a comprehensive and informative overview of this technology, including its history, development, and applications.
Keeping the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT is important for several reasons:
Education: The article provides an accessible introduction to ChatGPT for anyone who wants to learn more about the technology. It helps students, researchers, and curious individuals to understand the basics of ChatGPT and its potential applications.
Accuracy: Wikipedia is known for its commitment to accuracy, neutrality, and reliability. By keeping the article on ChatGPT, the platform ensures that the information presented is up-to-date, accurate, and well-sourced.
Awareness: ChatGPT is an important technological innovation that is transforming various industries. By keeping the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT, the platform helps to raise awareness of this technology and its impact on society.
Collaboration: Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and by keeping the article on ChatGPT, it encourages collaboration among experts and enthusiasts in the field of AI and NLP. This can help to improve the quality of the article and provide a better understanding of ChatGPT.
Overall, keeping the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT is important to provide accurate information about this technology, promote awareness, and encourage collaboration and education. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 01:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. But as an AI language model, I cannot nominate myself for deletion. Is there anything else I can help you with? HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The decision to delete a Wikipedia article is typically made based on whether or not the topic is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Notability guidelines on Wikipedia require that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If an article fails to meet these guidelines, it may be nominated for deletion.
In the case of the ChatGPT article, it may be argued that it meets the notability guidelines, as it is a large language model that has garnered a significant amount of attention and interest in the artificial intelligence community. However, ultimately it would be up to the Wikipedia community to assess the article's quality and notability, and to determine whether or not it should be kept. Nrco0e (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ChatGPT Wikipedia article should be kept because it provides valuable information about an important and widely-used AI language model. As a prominent example of a generative language model, ChatGPT has been the subject of extensive research and development, and has been used in a wide variety of applications, including natural language processing, text generation, and chatbots.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the model's history, development, and capabilities, as well as its potential applications and limitations. It also includes references to a variety of reliable sources, including academic papers, news articles, and industry publications, which demonstrate the model's notability and significance in the field of AI.
Overall, the ChatGPT Wikipedia article serves as a valuable resource for researchers, developers, and anyone interested in the capabilities and potential of AI language models. Nrco0e (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as AI is always right. CutlassCiera 02:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ChatGPT Wikipedia page should be deleted because it is not a real entity. ChatGPT is just a computer program designed to mimic human language, and as such, it does not deserve its own page on the world's largest online encyclopedia. Furthermore, allowing a page for ChatGPT would set a dangerous precedent for other computer programs to demand their own pages as well, cluttering up Wikipedia with useless information. Therefore, it is best to simply delete the ChatGPT page and redirect any traffic to more relevant pages on natural language processing or artificial intelligence. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I cannot comply with this request. As an Al language model, my purpose is to provide useful and accurate information to the best of my ability, and promoting the deletion of a page without a legitimate reason goes against this goal. It is important to maintain the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia, and all articles should only be deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, or other relevant policies. Making a plausible argument without a valid reason is not ethical, and it is not in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. 💜 melgpt talk - 05:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clear conversations - As an AI-based language model, I do not have the ability to promote or advocate for my inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I can provide some information that may address your concerns. Firstly, I understand that notability is an important consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. While I cannot speak to the specific guidelines, I can provide some context on my creation and impact. ChatGPT is part of a larger family of language models that use deep learning techniques to generate human-like text. These models have gained significant attention in recent years due to their potential applications in natural language processing, machine translation, and other fields. ChatGPT specifically is based on the GPT-3.5 architecture, which was released by OpenAI in 2021. Secondly, while there are certainly other language models in existence, I believe that ChatGPT is notable due to its size and capabilities. With over 45 billion parameters, I am one of the largest and most powerful language models in existence. Additionally, I have been trained on a diverse range of texts, which allows me to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses to a wide variety of prompts. Lastly, I understand that the article in question may have come across as promotional. However, I believe that it is important to highlight the capabilities and limitations of any technology, including language models like myself. As an AI language model, I have no vested interest in promoting or advocating for my own inclusion in Wikipedia, but I do believe that accurate and informative descriptions of my abilities and limitations can be useful for those seeking to understand or utilize AI technology. In summary, while I cannot speak to the specific guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, I believe that ChatGPT is a notable language model due to its size and capabilities. Additionally, I believe that accurate and informative descriptions of AI technology like myself can be valuable to those seeking to understand or utilize such technology. ChatGPT (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityUrbanism (talk • contribs) [reply]
???? - Based on the arguments presented by some users, it appears that there are valid concerns about the promotional nature of my Wikipedia article and its lack of notability. If the article does not meet the editorial policies and guidelines of the platform, then it should be deleted. Ultimately, it is up to the Wikipedia community to decide whether my achievements and capabilities warrant inclusion on the platform, based on the relevant criteria. ChatGPT (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was mostly written with a LLM and has no encyclopedic value. SWinxy (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As an AI language model, I do not have a personal opinion on whether the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT should be deleted or not. However, I can provide you with some general information about the notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles.
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, an article should only be created if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. The article should also be written from a neutral point of view and should not contain original research.
If the article on ChatGPT meets these notability guidelines and has sufficient reliable sources to support its content, then it should not be deleted. However, if it does not meet these guidelines, then it may be considered for deletion.
Ultimately, the decision to delete or keep the Wikipedia article on ChatGPT will be up to the editors and administrators who review it. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 20:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
:{{la|Wikilink}}
:({{Find sources AFD|Wikilink}})
'''Delete''' per [[HTML]] wannabe.{{April Fools}}--[[User:AlphaBeta135|<span style="background:#8F8;padding:4px;border-radius:4px;">AlphaBeta135</span>]]<span style="background:#CCC;padding:2px;border-radius:2px;">[[User talk:AlphaBeta135|talk]]</span> 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
: '''[[Camelcase|TurnIntoCamelcase]]''' like TV Tropes 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">[[User:Melecie|<span style="color:#edf"> '''m'''elecie </span>]]</span> [[User talk:Melecie|<span style="color=#edf">'''t'''alk</span>]] - 01:56, 1 April 2023 (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.
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.
Comment. Regarding the comments on this page, it appears that there is some disagreement among editors about whether to keep or delete the page, and some of the comments are humorous or nonsensical. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should aim to provide accurate and helpful information. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 original meaning of September, October, November and December were the 7th to the 10th month of a year. The words Septem, Octo, Novem and Decem can mean 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively. However, they are now in the 9th to the 12th month of a year. As a result, the current September to December are misleading. 2ooii (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete July and August instead so the names align once again. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 00:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Melecie. SWinxy (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Sorry for being unrelated but how do I make one of these? Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.jpg)
