Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Listing at WP:DELSORT under Science (FWDS) |
Bluerasberry (talk | contribs) oppose... |
||
Line 10:
: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|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 20:55, 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>]] 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
| |||