Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:22, 7 August 2016

Revision as of 14:29, 10 August 2016

Line 19:

*'''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]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]}</span> 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

<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">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]}</span></span> 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

*'''Merge''' to [[Swarm intelligence]]. It seems like there is a bit of secondary citation/usage of the algorithm, but that doesn't seem to indicate standalone notability because the publications are only mentioning the algorithm rather than giving in-depth secondary coverage. For a potential merge, someone would need to look over the sources to find what they consider a decent secondary source summarizing the method such as from the lede, [[tq|This algorithm contains a few essential elements of natural water drops and actions and reactions that occur between river's bed and the water drops that flow within.]] That itself may not be notable or need to be rewritten over at [[swarm intelligence]] too though. All the rest wouldn't be worth merging much less a standalone article per [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] and [[WP:NOTJOURNAL]]. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

*'''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)