Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplified swarm optimization: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
delete unless |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. Content may be restored and merged at editorial discretion. [[User:Arbitrarily0|<span style='color:black'><b><u><i><big>A</big>rbitrarily<big>0</big></i></u></b></span>]] <sup><b>([[User talk:Arbitrarily0|<span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#FF4500;">talk</span>]])</b></sup> 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
===[[Simplified swarm optimization]]===
:{{la|Simplified swarm optimization}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplified swarm optimization|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 25#{{anchorencode:Simplified swarm optimization}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
:({{Find sources|Simplified swarm optimization}})
I was tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is something in computer science. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — [[
*'''Merge''' to [[Swarm_intelligence]] until it matures enough to stand on it's own like [[Particle_swarm_optimization]] --[[User:DeVerm|DeVerm]] ([[User talk:DeVerm|talk]]) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
Line 15 ⟶ 21:
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:55%;" />
::* I think what he means is that 4 of the references are about Particle swarm optimizations in general and were published many years prior to Yehs. Looking at the dates of the publications, I would have to agree. The only reference I see that is directly related was the one published by the author. That isn't to say that subject couldn't eventually become notable, but I can't find any other 3rd party work citing this work or any website/conference/journal/etc that mention the paper besides Wikipedia and http://ieemweb.ie.nthu.edu.tw/project/index.php?num=7 (which appears to be the university page where Yeh attends or attended). [[User:Snaphat|snaphat]] ([[User talk:Snaphat|talk]]) 03:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 31 ⟶ 37:
::::::* The SSO of the article is a variant of the DPSO mentioned in reference 3. Essentially, the original DPSO is simply a a modification for the PSO to work in discrete ranges. The SSO introduces a special update mechanism for the particle position that doesn't exist in the original DPSO (the original is simply the particle position + particle velocity = particle position in next time step). Other than that, the procedure for computation is the same. Basically, there are many variants based on that first DPSO paper and there is nothing that makes this particular variant notable as per [[WP:N]]. [[User:Snaphat|snaphat]] ([[User talk:Snaphat|talk]]) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' unless someone does find an additional independent source. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Appears to be a description of a personal variant of an algorithm. The text is enough to move me to interpretive dance: ''The best fitness function value of a specified solution with its own history is called pBest and the solution with the best fitness function value among all solutions is called gBest; both are adapted from PSO. The major difference among all soft computing methods is the UM. The fundamental concept of SSO is that each selected variable value may be generated from the current solution, pBest, gBest, or a random number according to specifics in SSO. The UM of SSO is based upon the following simple mathematically model after Cw, Cp, and Cg are defined.'' - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] - [[User talk:Ihcoyc|killing the human spirit since 2003!]] 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Seeing as the SSO was devised in 2009 and the other reference all predate that. One technical report does not a notable article make.--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Like everyone else here I agree that this article doesn't stand up to [[WP:N]], hence the reason I did not go for keeping it. But I do not understand why it should be deleted instead of merged into it's parent article because imho it's clear that this isn't a hoax, as it's clear to most editors that vote to delete here too. I do think that it can be merged into a section of [[Particle_swarm_optimization]] --[[User:DeVerm|DeVerm]] ([[User talk:DeVerm|talk]]) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC).
:Now the algorithm may well be an improvement to the PSO or it may not. I'm not qualified to judge. Indeed we only have the authors word that it is better as the technical report has not been peer reviewed which would offers at least a basic check. Further as there are no citations no one else in the academic community has looked at the algorithm. So we are suggesting adding an untested algorithm to PSO article. Potentially this could have serious consequences as we essentially give our recommendation to the algorithm and if it were to turn out to have a serious bug some third party could be badly affected. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:: The thing is, besides not having any outside references, there isn't enough new information about this to warrant putting it on the PSO page. The only thing new about it is the method to choose the position. DPSOs in general are more notable and those aren't mentioned either. [[User:Snaphat|snaphat]] ([[User talk:Snaphat|talk]]) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||