Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 16:
:I love how every one of these "bio-inspired" algorithms claims to be a potential solution to the [[travelling salesman problem]]. Surprised they don't just claim they've solved [[P versus NP problem|P=NP]] by now. To others looking at the refs, note that the IEEE sources are not the IEEE journal itself, but spin-offs dedicated to incredibly specific disciplines tailor-made for this niche of computer science. [[User:Jergling|Jergling]] ([[User talk:Jergling|talk]]) 15:11, 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|<
*'''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>]] 19:51, 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 />
<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|<
<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 -->
Line 25:
*'''Keep''' The nomination talks of "few references" when the page when nominated actually had 22 separate references and most of them used the subject title. I have made an independent source search and had no difficulty finding a [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-9wlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA48 respectable book source] from the many choices available. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''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 [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||