Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert One

: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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

=[[Albert One]]=

:{{la|Albert One}} ([{{fullurl:Albert One|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert One}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Tries to reach notability by the creator's writing and Random Guy(TM)'s Master Thesis. And there is a tendency in the chatterbot category to make an article out every bot that wins or even partecipates in the Loebner Prize: most of them are not notable. M4gnum0n (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Well, I think the Loebner winners certainly deserve the best treatment we can give them. If not in separate articles, then in a merged list. ---Dhartung | Talk 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The "Random Guy(TM)" comment seems a bit unfair. That source was added because M4gnum0n asked for references a while ago. It's likely the winner of the Loebner AI chatterbot prize wouldn't have been in a mainstream internet news source in 1998 and 1999 just because AI chatterbots weren't in the mainstream news (unlike today [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Loebner+Prize%22+&btnG=Search+Archives]) so the editor has had to stretch for a source. Ridiculing it isn't helpful. 6 out of the 18 bots in the chatterbot category mention the Loebner prize (which has run for 17 years), I'm not sure that's a tendancy for every bot that's ever participated to have it's own article, expecially when you factor in that it is the prize for chatterbots so their claim for notability would likely start with the prize. There's a section in the Loebner prize article for the 2006,7 and 8 winners, would condensing the Albert One information and merging it into the Loebner Prize under a 1998 and 9 section be of any use? Ha! (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:: I've added some references (BBC, New Scientist). Ha! (talk)

  • Comment: Came across this discussion by chance. I noticed while looking around that "Albert is listed in the 2001 Guinness Book of World Records as the most human computer program in the world" [http://www.robitron.com/Albert.html]. I know that's not a proper citation (I don't have a copy of the 2001 book so can't cite it) but it does seem to establish more notability than some other chatterbots. 193.128.170.146 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Perhaps needs some more work, definitely not a delete. I would love to see the Guinness listing mentioned above properly cited to avoid future dispute. Isn't it safe to assume winning a Loebner Prize is notable if the actual competition itself meets notability? Maybe even import a reference from LP to AO since the article seems to fall within the same domain. As it stands the references provided seem strong if you look past the potenetial for self referencing issues. A quick search turns up quite a few term papers and .edu sources mentioning Albert One. Anyways here's what appears to be a published article mentioning Albert One: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/21/nmega21.html 99.229.222.154 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK but I dont think both creator AND software need an article. Also watch out for self- and cross-references added by a single-purpose account in this and other related articles. --M4gnum0n (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

:: Could you name the account (and articles if they're not obvious)? Thanks. Ha! (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Wow, I hadn't seen Robby's article page- it's got nice references right there. I think the existing citation of BBC News "Albert is top talking computer" is pretty much an open and closed case on both issues. Besides it seems to be a fairly common practice for developers of notable software to have their own articles. It provides more background info for anyone interested in the topic and they also fall into two separate realms; software and biography. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (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.