Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI bubble

AI bubble

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AI bubble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Tried Draft:AI bubble, but it was rejected as some duplicate of AI winter or whatever (oldid). I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft and how it's not some duplicate or derivative of AI winter. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Technology. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I don't think it's a duplicate of AI winter because that article is about a drop in funding and interest in AI, whereas AI bubble is about a large increase in funding. An AI winter would occur only after a bubble burst. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to AI boom (despite the seeming grudge-based nature of this AfD). I don't think it's redundant with AI winter because that is about general cycles in artificial intelligence, whereas this is specifically about 2020s generative AI. But having a separate article for a bubble that has yet to burst seems WP:TOOSOON. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the seeming grudge-based nature: "grudge-based"? How have I held a grudge against this topic or the article? I didn't think that this article would be created recently, honestly. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft -- Unless I'm missing something I'm not sure how your unrelated draft has anything to do with this article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I created a draft, citing reliable sources, trying to contest the so-called "AI boom", but it was rejected. As I figured, trying to prey the draft up still isn't worth another rejection. If that's unconvincing, shall I ping the one who rejected my draft then? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify what I really meant, I just now requested un-deleting the draft I made... just in past revisions, i.e. for historical use. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Well cited with a lot of independent sources. Don't see how this is redundant to AI winter at all. Both the Cryptocurrency bubble and Dot-com bubble have pages. –DMartin 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to AI boom, as WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the crypto and dot-com bubbles, this one hasn't burst (yet) so we can't properly say it's a bubble, WP:CRYSTAL references notwithstanding. No prejudice against re-creation when the bubble is proven to be just that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]