Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendly artificial intelligence
There are several issues here: the first is that Friendly AI is and always has been . That it has lasted this long on the Wikipedia is evidence of the lack of interest to researchers who would have otherwise recognized this and nominated deletion sooner. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Second, even if you manage to find  sources, this does not substantiate an article for it when it can and should be referenced in the biography for the author. Frankly, that is a stretch itself, given that it doesn't pass  as a verifiable topic, but I don't think anyone would object to it. Third, in , the minimum condition is that the information can be verified from a notable source. This strengthens the deletion argument, as there are no ''primary, peer-reviewed sources'' on the topic of Friendly AI. And it is not sufficient to pass notability by proxy; using a notable source that references non-notable sources, such as Friendly AI web publications, would invalidate such a reference immediately. Fourth, even if we were to accept such a stand-alone article, it would be difficult to establish it to an acceptable quality due to the immense falsehood of the topic. This kind of undue weight issue is mentioned in . Therefore, and in light of these issues, I ''strongly recommend'' deletion
— User:Lightbound, 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:NOTABLE||WP:TRUTH||WP:TRUTH||WP:TRUTH (Wikipedia:No original research)