Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine Intelligence Research Institute

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Intelligence Research Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Machine Intelligence Research Institute is hard to find wp:reliable sources for, while according to the appropriate category (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), at least 2 relevant sources, having the organization as its prime subject, are needed. In addition to my own (unsuccesful) search for sources, the links on this page are dead, link to its own page, to advertisements or to directory-like websites L.tak (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB:nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singularity Institute
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd have thought they were surely notable, but two profiles on the organisation would be an interesting one to put together. The referencing in the article as it stands is indeed dreadful and mostly-primary and needs an immediate cleanout, if only to make it clear what actualy substance there is under the chaff. It's easy enough to find those on related matters (LessWrong, HPMOR, Roko's Basilisk) but not so much on MIRI/SI/SIAI itself. I'd be very surprised if two in the fifteen years it's existed couldn't be found, though - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Artificial intelligence: machine v man, The Financial Times (MIRI seems to be the prime subject) --RaphaelQS (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, that's the sort of thing :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's clearly notable enough. There's too much press coverage to list all of it here, but see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. If you're asking why there's not that many reliable articles about the organization itself it's because their topic / what they are saying is of public interest more so than the organization itself.

Not sure why it was nominated, it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Check. Especially see: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

But yes the article probably needs some cleanup. Going to fix all the dead refs tomorrow or so. --Fixuture (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those cites are mostly not actually about MIRI at all, but about Elon Musk's new organisation in the same field, and we do need cites actually about MIRI - passing mentions really aren't enough. Nor about general concerns about AI risks which are already covered in other articles - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 09:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Easier to find sources when you consider the organization was known as the Singularity Institute until 2013. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 31 August 2015 (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.