Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:49, 30 July 2016

Latest revision as of 10:13, 20 July 2025

(16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate 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 [[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 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 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]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]}</span> 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

===[[Imperialist competitive algorithm]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

:{{la|Imperialist competitive algorithm}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 JulyAugust 258#{{anchorencode:Imperialist competitive algorithm}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperialist_competitive_algorithm Stats]</span>)

:({{Find sources AFD|Imperialist competitive algorithm}})

More metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

<big>'''Why Imperialist Competitve Algorithm article should be kept in Wikipedia?'''

Line 14 ⟶ 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 34 ⟶ 39:

* '''Criterion 1)''' The source of inspiration is not a new labeling of a previously proposed source of inspiration. It is based on the theory of social Darwinism which is the extension of the Darwins theory of evolution to sociology, politics, history and concepts. It is the first and the only major algorithm that is based on a source of inspiration that is not in the category of natural science and still has a strong connection with scientific theories. So the source of inspiration of the algorithm is totally new. The way GA, in the reverse application, is used to simulate artificial life, ICA can be used to model artificial history and social evolution. Giving life to virtual concepts like "country" and "nations" (based on the theories of socio-political evolution), the source of inspiration of ICA is unique and deserves attention and is one of the reasons behind its widespread adoption and success.

* '''Criterion 2)''' Unlike many of the "crufts", ICA is not enforcing a fake connection between the algorithm (optimization) world and the source of inspiration to just make things look fancy, without a valid natural-conceptual optimization process behind it. It is actually based on a process that is basically doing optimization in nature and human history (not a personal belief, but a theory behind it). As mentioned, ICA is based on Social Darwinism. Social Darwinists "compare society to a living organism and argue that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.". Hence, the source of inspiration for ICA is based on an "actual optimization process", something that is hard to find in many of the so-called "nature-inspired cruft"s. What makes it hard for some to understand ICA and see its somewhat ''strange'' inspiration source as a forced fake metaphor is that the source is not categorized in natural science which is the case with many of the major works in evolutionary computation, and that are easier to understand and agree with for computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. But ICA is simply GA of history and concepts (even concepts like algorithms!) with a totally different point of view that is based on socio-political evolution. There are many people who do not agree with the theory of social Darwinism, much more than those who do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution itself. As the number of people disagreeing with the Darwins theory does not make it less valid, the same is with the Evolution of Concepts which is much harder to describe. Because one should first understand and believe in the natural evolution and then get to a belief that nature is a concept itself and even the "theory of evolution" as a "living concept" is under the law of evolution itself! (how ICA sees the world in a much general framework)! Such a unique source of inspiration with hundreds of books written about it, is not a 250-word page from wikipediaWikipedia or a chart in a book or the name of a flower or an animal in a powerpoint file, that is then colored as the "inspiration source" for an algorithm that actually does not need it. There is much more theory and published books and papers behind ICA's inspiration source than behind Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization. It is the computer simulation of a process that actually is the optimization process of concepts (as living species) which is something much beyond the theory of natural evolution.

On the other hand, ICA has been trusted and used and tested by thousands of researchers in solving thousands of problems that are published in a few thousand papers. Actually, ICA is among the few algorithms that have a unique real source of inspiration and has been widely used and tested by the researchers.

Line 46 ⟶ 51:

<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.203.71.82|209.203.71.82]] ([[User talk:209.203.71.82|talk]]) 03:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

====Other comments====

==Other comments==

I added these comments to [[User_talk:Ruud_Koot|User talk:Ruud Koot]] who suggested the AfD. Then I realized that there are some general points here that can help with the decision about AfD for this page. So I am sharing the comments here too.

Line 60 ⟶ 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]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]}</span> 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)</small>

:<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]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]}</span> 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)</small>

<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]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]}</span> 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

:<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)

*'''Keep''' A plethora of Google Scholar citations clearly establishes notability in this case. The class or style of the algorithm shouldn't be considered.[[User:Callsignpink|Callsignpink]] ([[User talk:Callsignpink|talk]]) 20:33, 6 August 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, — '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|^''Talk!'']]''' 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

* '''Comment''' There is also an entry for this algorithm at {{slink|List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics|Imperialist competitive}}. This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:24, 12 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>