Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TabPFN

=[[:TabPFN]]=

:{{la|1=TabPFN}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=TabPFN}})

Fails WP:PROMO and contains likely AI-generated content (see, for example the bulleted lists of "features" and "limitations"). Several of the sources under "applications" are poorly cited research articles which I am not sure meet the criteria for inclusion and certainly don't meet the criteria for notability. Writing quality and encyclopedic tone throughout. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:BEFORE#C, if the issues are content related (as tagged by nom prior to AfD) then the editor should be given some time to develop the article (post talk-page discussion) or article should be edited to fix those issues. If notability is a concern, is nom. saying per WP:DILIGENCE that no sources exist for this AfD (since otherwise AfD may not be the correct procedure)? In my search, I can see secondary sources exist in reliable venues that discuss this topic. WeWake (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:I would be happy to help! However, the article is quite poor quality at the moment. It would require a substantial rewrite. I’m not an expert in the problem domain so not sure if it meets GNG. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::Caleb Stanford, I have rewritten the article in the meantime. Please take a look if possible. — WeWake (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for redrafting. I will take a look. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::@WeWake I checked the "The History, Evolution and Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)" source and it does not even mention TabPFN. Can you comment on what happened there?
::::Do you have a connection to TabPFN? Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: If it's unsourced, you're welcome to remove it. I addressed WP:PROSE issues and simply inlined the existing citations within the article. You're welcome to review the history; and I have no connection to the article other than what I am here for - to help create an encyclopedia. I am not sure what warrants this inquiry, but hopefully that helps. WeWake (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::The Nature article is referenced in the paper (number 42), however I agree that it's a statement that is more directed towards tabular foundation models in general instead of TabPFN specifically. AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep: After normal editing, example sources that meet WP:GNG (also easily WP:NSOFTWARE): (a) [https://iclr-blogposts.github.io/2024/blog/what-exactly-has-tabpfn-learned-to-do/ ICLR Blogposts 2024] – peer-reviewed "post" with editorial oversight published by ICLR from a non-primary source; (b) [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03852-x Nature News&Views] – published in the same venue, but a secondary commentary/coverage from a highly reputable source; (c) ~4k stars on GitHub; (d) [https://fortune.com/2025/02/05/prior-labs-9-million-euro-preseed-funding-tabular-data-ai/ Fortune (magazine) coverage] (considered reliable) by staff AI editor; and (e) TabPFN v1 cited >400 times (meets criteria of significant impact I'd say), and many more. WeWake (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:Nature News&Views looks good. Not sure if ICLR Blogposts is really reliable? I don't think there is a consensus to monitor stars on GitHub for notability for software (see WP:Notability (software)) and, even if so, 4K is really not that many for this purpose. Fortune may be notable according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#c-Atlantic306-2020-01-15T20:00:00.000Z-Kriptocurrency-2020-01-15T14:15:00.000Z here]. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::Caleb Stanford, the blog is peer-reviewed (double-blind) and also a poster actually ([https://iclr-blogposts.github.io/2024/call/ here]) – without any evidence presented to the contrary, that seems reliable in this context. — WeWake (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would say notability is there according to Wikipedia guidelines: sources 1, 2, 7 and 10 are discussing TabPFN in high detail, including a Nature publication, an ICLR conference paper and a Fortune article. In addition to this, sources 13 (IEEE Sensors Journal), 17 (Journal of Wetlands Research), 18 (NeurIPS), 20 (Digital Health), are research papers solely focused on TabPFN AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{ping|AlessandrobonettoPL}} Notability aside, I just checked all the sources in the "Performance" section and not a single one of them appears to support the claim that was stated in the article. Reference 7 that you mentioned, does not even mention TabPFN. Maybe these are from a previous draft of the article. The primary issue here in my view is quality and possible AI-generated content. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for your input but it seemed you were mostly concerned about notability and now that is not the issue anymore. The reference numbers were updated in the latest edit to the article. The Performance section has been reviewed by an external editor (@WeWake and can be easily revised if needed. Regarding AI-generated content, could you specify any particular sections you'd like to flag? These days, all content can be "possibly AI-generated", so if you have specific concerns we can address them. Also, Wikipedia is a place for every contributor to create the World's best source of information, so if you're not happy with the quality of a text, other than commenting on it you're more than welcome to edit the source and help us distribute this additional piece of knowledge to the world, especially given your valuable expertise in the subject matter :) AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks! Sure, happy to help. No my concern is not with notability but rather with promotion and article quality, including the references. I’m concerned with how the article was developed given we ended up with a performance section where the citations provided don’t correspond to the claims. I can check the history for who added the section but if you have any ideas… thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for contributing to the article! So can you confirm now that the article meets the standards for Wikipedia? Any additional edits required? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It does not yet. Can you please let me know what happened with the "Performance' section? How did it occur that none of the references provided support the information in the text? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hi @Caleb Stanford, I didn't write that section so I can't say. I will revise it today so you can review it soon AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hi @Caleb Stanford, I was reviewing the section and thought it would just be better to remove it entirely. Let me know what you think about it AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)