Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man–machine dilemma

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. L Faraone 05:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man–machine dilemma

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

Per prior prod by User:Randykitty: "Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. Possible copyvio of http://www.amazon.fr/Neuroepistemology-YURI-ZAMBRANO/dp/130008670X/ref=sr_1_72?ie=UTF8&qid=1357775331&sr=8-72" BarrelProof (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep. I fully agree that the page, in its current state, is a dismal mess. However, there seem to be (per the links above) multiple scholarly and book sources that discuss the term with respect to Gandhi and the Rorschach test, so the subject is probably notable. Alternatively, perhaps it could be made a redirect to Human–computer interaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The article is non-salvageable. There is virtually no real secondary literature on this specific topic. The article merely uses various sources to advance a novel position. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of the article has so many problems that it is not worth trying to fix. Disagree with stubifying because the content is in other articles having to do with artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the original PRODder. If there is good material as Tryptofish thinks), there is no prejudice against re-creating the article (perhaps under a better title). --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbfy: Text like "must find its bedrocks by researching the possibility whether machines boast consciential features" seems to be some sort of machine-written spam, but other portions suggest this is really just a bad article. Nevertheless, the topic itself seems real enough, so I heartily recommend leaving a stub. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The purpose of the article seems poorly defined; at best it is only implied. Further, I have to ask whether this article covers any material that isn't already presented in 'Philosophy of artificial intelligence'? Perhaps a merge is in order, if there is anything worth salvaging. Praemonitus (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article may have something to do with a topic that deserves to be kept in Wikipedia, but it is so poorly written and difficult to understand that it would be better to start over, if this topic even needs a separate article of its own (it may be already covered in another article, per Robert McClenon and Praemonitus). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2013 (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.