Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfly optimization algorithm - Revision history

MrOllie: Restored revision 1083770986 by Sandstein (talk): Rv comment added to closed discussion

2022-09-09T13:17:20Z

Restored revision 1083770986 by Sandstein (talk): Rv comment added to closed discussion

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:17, 9 September 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::It caught my attention that this page was deleted and redirected to a page with a list of metaheuristics.
	::However it was removed from that list. I wonder if we can restore that page, since the particular algorithm seems to be widely used by researchers (according to google scholar) and I believe that it would be valuable for the academic society.
	::Thanks in advance [[User:Jam3sSoug\|Jam3sSoug]] ([[User talk:Jam3sSoug\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Jam3sSoug: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Reply

2022-09-09T13:09:59Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:09, 9 September 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			::It caught my attention that this page was deleted and redirected to a page with a list of metaheuristics.
			::However it was removed from that list. I wonder if we can restore that page, since the particular algorithm seems to be widely used by researchers (according to google scholar) and I believe that it would be valuable for the academic society.
			::Thanks in advance [[User:Jam3sSoug\|Jam3sSoug]] ([[User talk:Jam3sSoug\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sandstein: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Closed as redirect (XFDcloser)

2022-04-20T16:16:41Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Closed as redirect (XFDcloser)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
 :{{la|1=Mayfly optimization algorithm}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfly optimization algorithm|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 12#{{anchorencode:Mayfly optimization algorithm}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1082243653/cur|edits since nomination]])
@@ Line 41: / Line 46: @@
 *'''Redirect''' to an appropriate section of [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 *:I am focusing on gathering more sources that use the mayfly algorithm as the main algorithm, to improve the article. There may be a slight delay due to the holidays. Thank you! [[User:GusRDRM|GusRDRM]] ([[User talk:GusRDRM|talk]]) 10:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

GusRDRM: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Reply

2022-04-18T10:59:37Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:59, 18 April 2022
Line 40:		Line 40:
	*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Redirect''' to an appropriate section of [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Redirect''' to an appropriate section of [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:I am focusing on gathering more sources that use the mayfly algorithm as the main algorithm, to improve the article. There may be a slight delay due to the holidays. Thank you! [[User:GusRDRM\|GusRDRM]] ([[User talk:GusRDRM\|talk]]) 10:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ rd

2022-04-17T01:14:32Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: rd

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:14, 17 April 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:
	*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Redirect''' to an appropriate section of [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Chalst: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ redirect

2022-04-16T13:10:03Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: redirect

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:10, 16 April 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Chalst: comment: SIGCOV requires integrity of sourcing

2022-04-16T09:47:30Z

comment: SIGCOV requires integrity of sourcing

← Previous revision		Revision as of 09:47, 16 April 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:: Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not ''reviewing'' it. If you are improving the article, {{u\|GusRDRM}}, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of {{u\|Hoary}}, and really meant that ''it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good'' in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it ''still'' gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.		:: Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not ''reviewing'' it. If you are improving the article, {{u\|GusRDRM}}, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of {{u\|Hoary}}, and really meant that ''it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good'' in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it ''still'' gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.
	:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Reply

2022-04-12T22:20:37Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:20, 12 April 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:::::Something from Wikipedia and i stop here because several dont understand what freedom of speech means... "Wikipedia is an online ''free-content'' encyclopedia ''helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge''".		:::::Something from Wikipedia and i stop here because several dont understand what freedom of speech means... "Wikipedia is an online ''free-content'' encyclopedia ''helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge''".
	:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kostas 0231: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Reply

2022-04-12T20:52:38Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:52, 12 April 2022
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:::Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::I am, in fact, entirely comfortable with [[Impact_factor#Criticism\|dismissing Impact Factor as a means of evaluating anything]]. My present opinions about the topic at hand broadly align with those expressed by {{u\|Elemimele}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMayfly_optimization_algorithm&type=revision&diff=1082340438&oldid=1082339306 below], who aptly summarizes the "role of Wikipedia". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 19:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::::I am, in fact, entirely comfortable with [[Impact_factor#Criticism\|dismissing Impact Factor as a means of evaluating anything]]. My present opinions about the topic at hand broadly align with those expressed by {{u\|Elemimele}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMayfly_optimization_algorithm&type=revision&diff=1082340438&oldid=1082339306 below], who aptly summarizes the "role of Wikipedia". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 19:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Something from Wikipedia and i stop here because several dont understand what freedom of speech means... "Wikipedia is an online ''free-content'' encyclopedia ''helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge''".
			:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter: /* Mayfly optimization algorithm */ Reply

2022-04-12T19:29:39Z

Mayfly optimization algorithm: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:29, 12 April 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::Those 127 citations include [[MDPI]] journals and physics conference proceedings, neither of which are known for a high standard of review. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::Those 127 citations include [[MDPI]] journals and physics conference proceedings, neither of which are known for a high standard of review. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::I am, in fact, entirely comfortable with [[Impact_factor#Criticism\|dismissing Impact Factor as a means of evaluating anything]]. My present opinions about the topic at hand broadly align with those expressed by {{u\|Elemimele}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMayfly_optimization_algorithm&type=revision&diff=1082340438&oldid=1082339306 below], who aptly summarizes the "role of Wikipedia". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 19:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:17, 9 September 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::It caught my attention that this page was deleted and redirected to a page with a list of metaheuristics.
	::However it was removed from that list. I wonder if we can restore that page, since the particular algorithm seems to be widely used by researchers (according to google scholar) and I believe that it would be valuable for the academic society.
	::Thanks in advance [[User:Jam3sSoug\|Jam3sSoug]] ([[User talk:Jam3sSoug\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:09, 9 September 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. [[User:Kostas 0231\|Kostas 0231]] ([[User talk:Kostas 0231\|talk]]) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::::::Per [[Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH\|policy]], {{tq\|Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			::It caught my attention that this page was deleted and redirected to a page with a list of metaheuristics.
			::However it was removed from that list. I wonder if we can restore that page, since the particular algorithm seems to be widely used by researchers (according to google scholar) and I believe that it would be valuable for the academic society.
			::Thanks in advance [[User:Jam3sSoug\|Jam3sSoug]] ([[User talk:Jam3sSoug\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment''', {{u\|David Eppstein}} we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		*:Yes, for example, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224 Karami et al. (2021)] just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:14, 17 April 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:
	*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Redirect''' to an appropriate section of [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. [[User:XOR'easter\|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter\|talk]]) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:10, 16 April 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Redirect''' to [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm]]. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9497097 The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions]. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar [[Firefly algorithm]]. Note that as an [[WP:ATD]], a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as {{u\|GusRDRM}} proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that [[List of metaphor-based metaheuristics]] has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 09:47, 16 April 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:: Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not ''reviewing'' it. If you are improving the article, {{u\|GusRDRM}}, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of {{u\|Hoary}}, and really meant that ''it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good'' in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it ''still'' gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.		:: Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not ''reviewing'' it. If you are improving the article, {{u\|GusRDRM}}, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of {{u\|Hoary}}, and really meant that ''it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good'' in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it ''still'' gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.
	:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		:: Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be [[WP:TOOSOON]]. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? [[User:Elemimele\|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele\|talk]]) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''': I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The [[WP:SIGCOV]] criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — [[User:Chalst\|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst\|(talk)]]</small> 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)