Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine learning in Brazilian industry

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. While the author has made a heroic effort to improve the page, I see clear consensus that this did not result in an article that meets our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Machine learning in Brazilian industry

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

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

This essay-like article, the result of a student assignment, really needs either WP:TNT or draftification since it is a mess of WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources are either: (a) not about machine learning/AI, (b) not about Brazilian industry, (c) WP:Primary government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos". Draftification was contested. Possibly AI-generated as well. One of the few relevant secondary sources, On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, is non-independent since the authors are part of organizations that partner with the observatory.

If this is draftified, we should require the authors to submit through WP:AFC since they already contested draftification without solving the underlying problems. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Brazil. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TNT required. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi. Yesterday I had mande several improvements. As I mentioned, this is our first time working on Wikipedia as authors, and we're adapting to the needs outlined in the review.

Please let us know if this is OK now or if we still need to adjust it. If necessary, we'll change the article's approach. That would be fine with us. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the highlighted points:

items a) and b) I kindly ask you to highlighted the references are not regarding ML/AI or brazilian industry sector because we took the information direct from the sources of the references and almost all of them are about AI aplication and/or brazilian industry or its sectors.

c) Regarding government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos" and others as bills, they are all public and to improve the access to the readers I just have inserted the PDF link access to the document. Those documents talk about what brazilan government and congress plan to do to improve AI aplication in Brazil and therefore we consider extremily important to the article.

Regarding On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, we have removed it and replaced for the public access article that raises the same issue about the concernings about privacy policies of AI.

I am totally avaliable to make this work. Please anallyse the response and if necessary any more improvements I am on to do it.

thanks dears for the contributions. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, your sources are either about AI or Brazilian industry, but not both. Combining sources that are just one or the other is WP:SYNTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-write the whole article from scracht, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects.

• I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - For context, it looks like this article was created during a workshop this month: Wikipedia:GLAM/PoliMi/2025. The author self-IDs as a PhD student who is willing to work on the article, and I see salvageable material here, so I think going through AfC is completely reasonable here. I also think a WP:HEY improvement could avoid WP:TNT here. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that it looks like this draft was reviewed by three new editors, also participants in the workshop: User:Qiongjx, User:Rezreven, and User:Terzinator98. It doesn't look to me like it was reviewed by any of the workshop organizers. Suriname0 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI to other editors: I went through each of the other articles created by this workshop. I believe all the rest meet WP:GNG, although most of them need copyediting. I've tagged them accordingly. Suriname0 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think that's the most relevant improvement to be made here. In general, I would follow the advice at WP:THREE: identify three secondary, reliable sources directly addressing machine learning in Brazilian industry in depth. That will help other participants in this discuss determine if the article should be kept and improved. The main concern raised by the nominator is improper WP:SYNTH, meaning that much of the content of the article is not informed by independent, reliable, secondary sources but instead by original research of primary materials to reach conclusions not suggested by the original material. If we have sources showing that the topic is notable, then we can remove sections not supported by those sources (per WP:DUE). I know Wikipedia policy is confusing, so please ask if you have more questions. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add: one good way to learn more about Wikipedia processes is to borrow the formatting and style of others. In this case, you might consider looking at the way User:Cunard formats their AfD votes and format your own vote similarly. Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Power Within (1979 film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Sciences Corporation (2nd nomination), etc. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-write the whole article from scracht, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, but I'll repeat the advice at WP:THREE: as you can see from the other votes, the crux of the issue here is sourcing. It will really help reviewers here determine if the subject meets WP:GNG by leaving a comment identifying the three best sources that establish the notability of this topic. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will do that and revise the article right away. I let you know. Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did yesterday (July 21) to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects.

• I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again.

R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Metallurgist (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have made several improvements (references, content and others improvments according to Wikipedia policies) yesterday in the article. Please check them out and let me know.

We'll be happy to make any adjustments. As I mentioned, this is our first time working on Wikipedia as authors, and we're adapting to the needs outlined in the review.

Please let us know if this is OK now or if we still need to adjust it. If necessary, we'll change the article's approach. That would be fine with us. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RS Tgn You need sources that specifically describe how ML/AI is being applied in Brazilian industry, it is not enough to combine sources only about ML/AI with sources only about Brazilian industry. Governmental proposals are WP:PRIMARY sources and are therefore of limited value; at least some secondary sources are required. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-write the whole article from scratch, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I have made the following improvements:

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and get back to me, please. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the article has been completely rewritten and renamed to Artificial intelligence and industry 4.0 in Brazil, and the sources appear on the surface to be relevant, but the article is still essay-like and reads like it's AI-generated. In fact the rewrite was initially done without any references at all, which suggests the sources might not verify the text very well. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have written by my hands. There is no copy-past text, no plagio. In fact, I have written if without any references first and save several times but then I have added carefully add the citations and refrences for each paragraph. Please take a carefull look and let me know if is still anything wrong on that. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I write it again I can do it. Please let me know what to do to publish. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain how this was done:

1) First, I selected a few reliable references on the topic I wanted to address, respecting Wikipedia's policies.

2) After that, I developed the text's structure.

3) For each section of the article, I wrote the text with my hands without references (which I had already read and studied).

4) After finishing the text, I returned to inserting the references by paragraph. Naturally, the paragraph is not the same as the reference, as that is not correct. The reference supports the reasoning and conclusions of the paragraph.

5) Once this was done, I again inserted links to the Wikipedia pages for the relevant terms.

After your comment here I have completely reviewed and improved the text. Please take a look again and check if it is accordingly. I think it is much better. Thank you.R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)(Hi!)]][reply]
Yeah, sourcing seems to be okay. This might be good enough to keep instead of draftifying. My main concern is the essay-like tone and structure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure my friend. It was my concern and that is why I have reviewed and changed the text. Please let me know if you still have any other consideration in the structure, If so, let me know. I am glad to review also that if is necessary. Wait for your response. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did today (July 21) to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again

R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Yesterday I have re-writen from scratch the article, changed the title, improved and renewed the entire content manually, also structure and sessions, and I have improved the references.

Please let me know if there any other improvement to do regarding this topic. I consider that for English readers we do not have any other topic related to this one, except the separated concepts themselves and therefore I sincerelly consider that is very important topic for those milions of brazilians and interested, specially for industry sector.

Wait for your reply. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT. More like an essay than a Wikipedia article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I will revise the article and let you know. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend posting your message once (for example as a comment at the bottom) instead of sharing the same message to everyone.

Some unsolicited advice: Use caution when using LLMs to draft and share messages, even on talk pages (WP:LLM). They have a tendency to act as an echo chamber for your own point of view and may simply not alert you if there are real issues with sourcing for this topic. IMO, this would be a great article for a Medium or blog post, not so great for an encyclopedia. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topics don't acquire notability through being the intersection of two (or more) notable topics; the intersection itself has to be covered by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Where are the sources covering this topic? This would need sources treating all components in conjunction (AI, Industry 4.0, Brazil), not just sources about those individual components. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I will revise the article and let you know. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out the source(s) that treat the intersection of the topics mentioned? I had a brief look but couldn't see that any of them qualify. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Star Mississippi:. Svartner (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2025 (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.