Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m fixed lint errors – misnested tags |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 5:
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 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 '''keep'''. Of note is that a policy- or -guideline-based rationale for deletion was not provided by the nominator, and no other users have opined for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. The nominator also stated in a later comment, "This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect". <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<
===[[Imperialist competitive algorithm]]===
Line 20:
Before making a decision, we should first bring a scientific definition and criteria for calling the work thousands of researchers, "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". Let's first ask this question: What makes an algorithm to be called "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? What is the criteria?
'''Some suggestions:'''
# Is that the age of and algorithm? So Genetic Algorithm can be called novel because it was proposed in 1950s and another algorithm proposed in 2,000 is not? If yes, then what is the specific year at which we should cut and label all the newer algorithms "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? In this case, how should we label "Particle Swarm Optimization" and "Ant Colony"?
#
Line 65 ⟶ 64:
Hope this helps with the decision.
[[Special:Contributions/66.75.251.213|66.75.251.213]] ([[User talk:66.75.251.213|talk]]) 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics|list of Mathematics-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|<
<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 class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. I can't spot "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" among our [[WP:DEL#REASON|reasons for deletion]], so I'll assume it's the subject's [[WP:notability|notability]] that's in question. The above Google Scholar search, besides showing 995 citations of the original paper, reveals two book chapters with this title which constitute significant coverage in what appear to be independent reliable sources sufficient to meet [[WP:GNG]]:[http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03404-1_15] [http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05549-7_11]. (If there's some close connection between the authors of these chapters and the authors of the original paper that means they're not independent sources, it's not obvious to me.) [[User:Qwfp|Qwfp]] ([[User talk:Qwfp|talk]]) 09:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
| |||