Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Yet another "nature-inspired" [[metaheuristic]]. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass [[WP:GNG]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
Yet another "nature-inspired" [[metaheuristic]]. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass [[WP:GNG]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:: See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
:: See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|< |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|< |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Oppose''' for each of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm]]. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish [[WP:GNG]]. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet [[WP:RS]] and establish [[WP:GNG]]. Why demand a higher standard in this case? [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' for each of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm]]. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish [[WP:GNG]]. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet [[WP:RS]] and establish [[WP:GNG]]. Why demand a higher standard in this case? [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> |
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> |
||
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|< |
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> |
||
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> |
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> |
||
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:red">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> |
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:red">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> |
||
Latest revision as of 19:29, 19 March 2022
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep/merge This one seems weaker than the water drops and glow worm cases but there's something to it and so the worst case is that we merge up into a page like List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.