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

Revision as of 09:15, 2 August 2016

Revision as of 20:33, 6 August 2016

Line 64:

:<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)