Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI : BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Computing ,  and California .  BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral — I disagree with the argument that this article is not news, given that articles such as dismissal of James Comey exist.  The nascency of an event does not determine its notability.  There are sufficient references to sustain an article, but the question remains if an article is necessary at all.  This is a question I mulled over several times before determining that this is an event with reaching implications and sustained coverage, including extensive coverage in The New York Times , Bloomberg News, and Axios ; the jostling for information contributes to this article's vitality.  It remains to be seen if this will be resolved within days or hours, which will help reach consensus here.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I would like to mention that, according to this article , Sam Altman has been reinstated as OpenAI's CEO.  Thank you for your mentioning of the event's coverage by the New York Times, I simply would wish to contribute what I find is contradictory to the entire article as a whole.  -- Typedex01 ( talk ) 13:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I disagree that the page violates WP:NOTNEWS .  The page is a collection of well sourced references to a developing situation at an consequential company.  – Nirvana Today t@lk 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced).  -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not get your argument, the {{ current event }} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles.  In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site.  The page isn't developed as a news source.  The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO  – Nirvana Today t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Sam Altman .  Per WP:NOTNEWS - a lot of readers, if not most, won't even know who he is.  This is internal tech news specific to Altman, and shouldn't be a stand-alone.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : When almost every employee of a major tech company/non-profit threatens to resign, this is definitely way beyond “niche tech news”.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Redirect : Now that Altman & Co. have returned, this indeed fails SUSTAINED a bit.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI and/or Sam Altman per WP:NOTNEWS ; concur with Maile .  Also, there is no stand-alone article on Steve Jobs’ removal from Apple, which is comparable in its significance.  The Madness of Joanna ( talk ) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into both OpenAI and Sam Altman .  I agree that this doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS , but I don't see why it can't be written about in the OpenAI article.  Unless we get a significant amount more news, those articles wouldn't become too long either.  — Panamitsu (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I am now satisfied that there is too much content to merge into the OpenAI and Sam Altman articles.  — Panamitsu (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ASZ ?  Size doesn't matter, bro.  Policies matter.  — kashmīrī TALK 20:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The claim that this article violates WP:NOTNEWS is not justified.  There is sufficient sourcing to exemplify this event from standard oustings à la Travis Kalanick.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to OpenAI .  Agree with BangJan1999 that the creation of this entry " Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT . " Cfls ( talk ) 04:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as article contains substantial content that would not be well covered as a subsection of another article [ osunpokeh / talk / contributions ] 06:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree with everything here AI coolTIM ( talk ) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to OpenAI .  The thing is, this is a comparatively small event in relation to OpenAI and/or Sam Altman.  It is likely that with the current state of affairs, there will be only a few additions to this subject.  Also this event was already covered in detail in the OpenAI article, although I also believe that this information would be relevant to Sam Altman as well.  Zenulabidin2k ( talk ) 08:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This event has stunned the tech world and is notable, especially as it relates to such a powerful technology.  Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as historical event that affects much more than Sam and OpenAI.  I agree that it won't be well covered if merged with other articles.  I disagree that lack of article about Steve Jobs’ removal is relevant here, as pace and short-term aftermath of these two events is not comparable.  RussianNeuroMancer ( talk ) 12:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Since no one has mentioned it yet, the guideline at WP:PAGEDECIDE seems directly applicable and may be useful in the discussion.  - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above.  Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles.  (Separate comment : The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.)  Andrew11374265 ( talk ) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as this is a notable event that merits its own article with deeper detail, added as the story develops.  There are more details that would be appropriate to discuss at length outside of the OpenAI or Sam Altman articles.  My only suggestion would be to rename the article to something like Dismissal of Sam Altman rather than "removal." – Avigl ( talk ) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article is too long to fit comfortably in either of the two main articles, so a separate article is appropriate.  Regarding WP:NOTNEWS , it is not routine at all.  -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Routine coverage is just one of the examples given by NOTNEWS.  The crux of that policy is that not everything that makes it to newspaper headlines should have its own article.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:NOPAGE , WP:10YEAR , WP:NOTNEWS , etc.  This will all blow over, everyone will go back to their lives, and this topic will no longer be relevant.  Corporate drama happens all the time.  There's nothing here that couldn't be merged into OpenAI and Sam Altman .  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The arguments for notability and significance have been established.  The question is, and remains, if a separate article is warranted.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i think there should, there is a lot of content regarding the removal, and the nature of this firing is definitely highly important so I think this should be keep — Karnataka talk 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ElijahPepe Can you clarify whether you want the article deleted, kept or merged?  By the way, notability has not been established – most commenters here have challenged the notability claim as not fulfilling WP:NEVENT .  — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the ensuing drama will not be relevant in a few weeks.  Keep this in Altman's and OpenAi's articles.  Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because an article loses relevance over time doesn't mean we should delete it, else half of the articles on this site would have to go PrecariousWorlds ( talk ) 12:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NTEMP .  2.100.129.89 ( talk ) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose deletion : no opinion on keeping, but this should absolutely be merged or redirected somewhere.  Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI .  An investors dispute related to staffing in a company is precisely the type of news that we do NOT run.  To be included in an encyclopaedia, standalone events must be permanently notable per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTTEMPORARY , whereas here nobody will recall this short-lived staffing news in five years from now.  — kashmīrī TALK 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Too much info to be included into other articles, too big of a company, too big of an issue, too big of consequences.  Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk ) 06:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really, you say it's too big for a deletion ?  Volumes can be written about a single event or a hire/dismissal.  Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip or diary .  — kashmīrī TALK 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway.  — kashmīrī TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece?  While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk ) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago.  As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball.  — kashmīrī TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation.  So long as  1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands);  2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and  3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact.  -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Many different crazy events being covered by many news agencies, e.g. latest one is https://www.reuters.com/technology/openais-board-approached-anthropic-ceo-about-top-job-merger-sources-2023-11-21/ .  I think this amount of information is unusual and thereby require its own article Pere Orga ( talk ) 12:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI .  Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT.  A year from now, it'll seem funny we were even debating this.  Owen× ☎ 16:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Funnily enough, I actually suspect the opposite; when all the memoirs and documentaries about OpenAI are published in 5-10 years  this article will probably be recreated  with new information.  But that's not relevant now .  Mach61 ( talk ) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE .  An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI, at least for now.  It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet.  And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip.  G5bestcfb ( talk ) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili ( talk ) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to OpenAI .  Keep redirect and categories.  ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article.  The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable.  If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus.  Jamedeus ( talk ) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI.  Looks to be something temporary since it's been reported that he has been reinstated to OpenAI, therefore  per WP:SUSTAINED it doesn't warrant its own article.  Hzh ( talk ) 11:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the articles as stated above.  WP:TOOSOON at best, and the amount of immediate splash an event makes isn't necessarily the best determiner of notability; after all we don't have an article about Will Smith being slapped.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per @ Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds ( talk ) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above.  At least currently a WP:RECENTISM .  Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Pretty much just a investors dispute.  This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles.  DarkSide830 ( talk ) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need.  Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign.  Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now.  Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts.  DarkSide830 ( talk ) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu ( talk ) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:NOPAGE , which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context .  This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable.  But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI , and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure.  But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Major notable event with lots of coverage.  The article has considerable length and will make the merged page too long.  Anyway if merging is suggested a merge request with a specific target should be made rather than a request for deletion.  In general pages that are merged cannot be deleted, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete .  2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:D015:105D:EDE4:A952 ( talk ) 22:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While it indeed has a lot more detail, the meat of it is in the § Removal and § Reinstatement efforts.  Maybe also mention the changes in share price and the reactions listed under § Technological industry.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 22:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOTNEWS .  -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI per NOPAGE and NOTNEWS.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 06:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable enough to be a standalone page.  Supergrey1 ( talk ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman .  This article should never have been created, much less nominated for ITN.  Significant corporations certainly deserve to have their stories told here, but we don't need a separate article just for this one event.  This is suffering from editor myopia to a noteworthy level - this would not be happening if the company in question were Nike, Lego, or Cadbury.  GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 17:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE .  Celjski Grad ( talk ) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to OpenAI , same argument as Red-tailed hawk.  DFlhb ( talk ) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — As more articles continue to be written about Altman's removal, I am shifting my position to keeping this article.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Open AI and Sam Altman .  Traditional and ordinary business drama without even a medium-term impact.  _-_Alsor ( talk ) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to OpenAI and merge content there, with no prejudice against splitting it back out at a later date if it turns out to have been a historically significant event.  Getting a lot of coverage doesn't really indicate that something is significant as a topic in its own right, and OpenAI is a very hot company so there's going to be a lot of coverage of whatever random crap happens there.  We could, for example, have Sam Altman in 2021 and Sam Altman in 2022 and Sam Altman in 2023 etc etc, there's coverage of that, but it's not clear that there is really that meaningful of a difference between the topics.  jp × g 🗯️ 23:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (for now) .  This article needs a heavy rewrite, but it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade.  One might consider renaming the article, since (for now) he seems to be back.  Also note that as of Tuesday night, they had only reached an agreement in principle (perhaps because of the pressure of the Thanksgiving holiday).  Also, there is still backstory to come out as to what caused the board to remove Sam Altman, which may be noteworthy (see the Q* news).  Even as time passes and the events settle, this will likely be considered a seminal event in the history of Artificial Intelligence, Silicon Valley, and corporate governance.  Long term, perhaps in several years, it can be merged, but that is not current state as we still figure out what the fallout is.  Jenny8lee — Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are reasoning backwards -- it doesn't make sense to write huge articles about breaking news stories on the hunch that they might at some point end up having mattered a lot. If that happens we can restore the article from the old revision in five seconds. But it might not happen -- what's to say OpenAI doesn't reach scaling limits, or that open models don't catch up quickly, or that none of a million random things that would stop this from mattering randomly occur?  jp × g 🗯️ 03:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade ...  Poor me, I thought that the first working quantum computer , functional AI, Starlink or 6G were amongst the most breaking IT stories of the past decade.  Alas, it was a human resources crisis in an American nonprofit.  ROTFL.  — kashmīrī TALK 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's getting wall-to-wall coverage because many see this as among the most consequential battles in history, as it revolves around OpenAI achieving AGI and AI safety / avoiding globally catastrophic AI aftermath scenarios .   Deletion will soon seem about as appropriate as deletion of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan .  -- RudolfoMD ( talk ) 12:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds very crystal-ball...  Neither OpenAI nor Microsoft have created any AI in control of infrastructure yet.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL .  This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia.  -- Zim Zala Bim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say there are two camps.  1 is "very significant", which includes this ! vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge".  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by ! vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge.  — kashmīrī TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough.  ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article .  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site.  But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now.  That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about.  It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly.  Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that.  We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets.  GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman - much of this article is redundant and the remaining details are excessive for encyclopedic coverage per WP:NOTNEWS .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at least for now.  Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles.  Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it.  HouseOfChange ( talk ) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Pere Orga skak E L 13:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Red-tailed Hawk.  I don't think any of the four bullet points at WP:NOTNEWS apply, but ultimately there's not that much new here once you strip out all the context.  Mach61 ( talk ) 19:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Delete given that this has calmed down since a lot of these responses were made, I think its now pretty clear this will go down as an unusual but relatively trivial bit of corporate nonsense.  I see no reason this would gather long term coverage or have an ongoing lasting impact that would have it need a standalone article.  EoRdE6 ( Talk ) 04:20, 26 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus