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]

Hi 118.14.212.118 Wikipedia has its own Notabality standard which is largely based on the depth of coverage in secondary sources, not by whether or not the original idea is sufficiently important, Sadads (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]