Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subpopulation Algorithm based on Novelty

Subpopulation Algorithm based on Novelty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article de-prodded by creator on claims of Novelty and usefulness. Article does not appear to be about a topic with significant external coverage, suggesting it does not meet minimum notability requirements. Sadads (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Based on a single recent publication that Google scholar lists as having only three citations; actually what it has is two self-citations and something that was published earlier and listed erroneously, so there are no independent references, even ones as minimal as a brief citation. Fails WP:NOR, WP:GNG, and probably WP:REFSPAM. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE. I've backed out my close per a request on my talk page, and relisting this for another week's debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lacks sufficient context and at least needs a parent topic article before we get this deep. If it turns out to be important, we can revive it later, but right now it's kind of WP:NOCONTEXT Jergling (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per definition, notability is something famous or important. It is a new paradigm created in 2015 by a small group of researches, so it does not match the famous portion of the definition. However, it was published by a high impact journal (3.6) and the results reported does surpass all algorithms currently known in one of the hardest benchmarks of multi-objective, specially when the problem gets harder. Moreover, the basic paradigm of the approach is simple although completely different from anything done before. Thus, it seems important. So I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.14.212.118 (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete – Per nom. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]