Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI datacenter

AI datacenter

[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)

Contested WP:BLAR. Original reasoning was This is a rambling, borderline incoherent writing that jumps from topic to topic at random and is completely unfocused. Redirecting to the main data center page as I don't believe that AI Datacenters are notable by themselves even if properly written. Author has stated that it supposedly is a "work in progress" but I'm not sure how credible that claim is... it would take a huge amount of work to make what currently exists acceptable. Note that I am skipping the step of draftifying since I have a feeling the creator would just revert that as well. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Article is work in progress. First step was to write down immediate notes. It is all focused on the topic of AI datacenter. There is much to write and there is much discussion in the news and internet on this topic, reaching all way to the whitehouse. I reviewed the process of draftifying. I think the article will get more edits where it is.

On the topic of notability: the article has 30+ references including links to whitehouse discussion and some of the most important companies in the world. I find the argument of lack of notability absurd.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done editing for now. Thanks for the help. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Wikishovel (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs. 15 and 20 are enough to satisfy SIGCOV, and I think the topic is distinct enough from "data center" more generally to have an article (the sources seem to suggest AI datacenters are unique, and based on my limited knowledge I would agree). But the article right now is a hot mess, with much better sourcing needed and considerable copyediting for clarity and coherence. Frankly the article isn't ready for mainspace so I could accept draftify as my second choice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Sounds like it is a work in progress so let's keep it in draft space and have it go through the normal AfC process? I am skeptical this is a necessary content fork of "datacenter" since there isn't that much different when it comes to AI datacenters. From my view they have extreme size/power/volatile memory/parallelism requirements but in a certain sense that is just the expected result of exponential growth in computation. I vote draftify and we can see how it ends up after further editing to judge whether it is a necessary/unnecessary content fork. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why sounds like? Have you bothered to look at the article? There are many differences outlined in the article. The 50 references and external links are unique for ai datacenters and are not generically talking about datacenter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge certainly data centre should include some information about AI datacentres, but not like this. Joe (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems to have been improved substantially from the time at which it was nominated. Seems well-written, and I would agree that this topic is unique enough to merit its own article, glancing through the sources looks pretty good. I'd say the article needs work but not deletion any longer. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to Redirect to data center. I suggested draftify before since the article seemed poorly written + actively being worked on and I didn't do a full in-depth look at all the sourcing b/c it seemed like a clear WP:REFBOMB. I had expected some sourcing to be good, but no reliable sources are providing a clear distinction between an "AI datacenter" and "A data center for AI". As I stated in my earlier comment, data centers being used for AI are not much different than "traditional" data centers. They have a higher degree of power/parallelism/cooling requirements, but data centers have always trended in that direction.

For those voting to keep, links to high quality sources showing a clear distinction between "AI datacenters" and larger/more advanced datacenters would be helpful for other voters. Ref numbers in the article are changing with edits. Of the sources currently in the article, this one from PCMag[1] meets reliability/depth criteria for data centers but notably never uses the phrase "AI data center". Most other reliable sources are talking about infrastructure build out and not about what constitutes an "AI datacenter" vs a bigger, more advanced "traditional" data center. Sources that are making a distinction between types seem to be user-generated and aren't reliable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: This New York Times article[2] differentiates between AI data centers and traditional ones by pointing out that AI data centers use water differently and have specialized hardware. The article should also be renamed to "AI data center" instead of "AI datacenter". I'll help with improving the article. The article will also need to be improved per Wikipedia:Reliable sources regarding source quality. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your points suggest to me a DRAFTITY would be a more proper and feasible outcome. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The (supposed) differences between data centers for AI and "traditional" data centers are still not clear enough to me to support this content fork. The relevant and important information about differences like heavy use of highly parallel processors, increased power requirements, faster interconnects, and more aggressive use of water cooling could easily be contained in a section of the article about data centers. Doubling the size of this article with exhaustive details about theoretical space-based systems and political opposition has made the article even less readable and the important information could be, once again, easily consolidated into a paragraph or subsection under an "AI datacenter" section in the article about data centers. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]