- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Insufficient sources to show that this is particularly notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Accelerated PSO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined a PROD on this article but the prodder is insistant that this should be deleted. The original rationale from the talk page can be viewed here Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wrote the reason for deleting the article I was unaware of the name of the WP rule justifying deletion, now I know it is called WP:Content forking. There are thousands of variants to particle swarm optimization (see e.g. Google Scholar) and Wikipedia should only list a few representative ones in the main article. A reference to the source of Accelerated PSO is already included in the main article, see the 'Yang' reference. So this is a clear case of content forking, apparently with the intent of promoting or giving unjustified weight to one such variant. This is also suggested by the fact that the article was inserted by a couple of single-purpose accounts. Finally, the article is of low quality. Optimering (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge – The main article that you mention does not even contain the word accelerated. So it isn't clear to me how the main article includes the content of this article. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should perhaps presume that the Wikipedians who respond to this are not experts on particle swarm optimization and metaheuristics. Briefly stated, it is a highly experimental research field, as I mentioned above there are literally thousands of variants of particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithm, differential evolution, etc. There are certain trends in that research and representative work should be referenced in the main articles to give the Wiki reader a concise overview. The Accelerated PSO is referenced under 'Yang' in the main article, and is given similar weight as other references of equal relevance (which is to say that Yang's work is not unique in its scientific contribution and hence does not deserve special treatment in the main article). Wikipedia would become severely bloated if all such variants were listed, either in the main article, or even worse, in independent articles. This is precisely what WP:Content forking seeks to prevent. I am supposedly an expert on the subject (please see my edit history) and I can't readily think of any PSO variant that would merit its independent article. To me this is a clear case of content forking (possibly with promotional intent and WP:sock puppetry to avoid detection) and the page should be deleted. Optimering (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would someone want to "promote" a PSO variant? It's not exactly a product for sale. Isn't it possible that this article simply was created by a new user with an interest in the subject and not for some devious purpose? Lots of people create accounts, do some quick editing, (which sometimes includes new articles) and lose interest.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should perhaps presume that the Wikipedians who respond to this are not experts on particle swarm optimization and metaheuristics. Briefly stated, it is a highly experimental research field, as I mentioned above there are literally thousands of variants of particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithm, differential evolution, etc. There are certain trends in that research and representative work should be referenced in the main articles to give the Wiki reader a concise overview. The Accelerated PSO is referenced under 'Yang' in the main article, and is given similar weight as other references of equal relevance (which is to say that Yang's work is not unique in its scientific contribution and hence does not deserve special treatment in the main article). Wikipedia would become severely bloated if all such variants were listed, either in the main article, or even worse, in independent articles. This is precisely what WP:Content forking seeks to prevent. I am supposedly an expert on the subject (please see my edit history) and I can't readily think of any PSO variant that would merit its independent article. To me this is a clear case of content forking (possibly with promotional intent and WP:sock puppetry to avoid detection) and the page should be deleted. Optimering (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In academia people are 'rewarded' according to the number of publications they make and the number of citations of their work. The identity of the creators of Accelerated PSO and their intent cannot be known, of course, but that is only a minor point. The real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify an independent Wikipedia article, which is not the case. I feel I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject and my arguments for deleting the article have been made very clear. Since I have more important things to do, if you are still unsure beyond this point you really need to obtain confirmation of its notability from independent sources, e.g. professors or renowned researchers in the field. (Ironically, it is quite possible that they will refer you to me.) Optimering (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the beauty of Wikipedia: it's a community. You're losing any support you might have had by saying things like "…I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject…". So what? I'm a mathematician but I don't go around telling people I know more than they do and that their opinion on maths articles is worthless. You'll find a very large proportion of Wikipedians are academics; so you're just one of the rank and file here. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In academia people are 'rewarded' according to the number of publications they make and the number of citations of their work. The identity of the creators of Accelerated PSO and their intent cannot be known, of course, but that is only a minor point. The real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify an independent Wikipedia article, which is not the case. I feel I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject and my arguments for deleting the article have been made very clear. Since I have more important things to do, if you are still unsure beyond this point you really need to obtain confirmation of its notability from independent sources, e.g. professors or renowned researchers in the field. (Ironically, it is quite possible that they will refer you to me.) Optimering (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fly by Night, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that out of you, Ron Ritzman and me, I was apparently the only one with any knowledge about particle swarm optimization and Accelerated PSO. So it is beyond me why you take it upon yourselves to express opinions and even make administrative rulings on the subject. Can we leave the debate before it gets too heated and just await another ruling, please? Optimering (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to express an opinion on an AfD discussion page? That's what these pages were invented for! As for making administrative rulings; well, that's just baffling. What administrative rulings? Where?! I posted my !vote on an AfD discussion page. You totally misunderstand the WP:AfD procedure. You posted a template on the article saying: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." That's exactly what I did, and that's what happens on AfD discussion pages: we discuss the deletion for around seven days and then, hopefully, after reaching a concusses, a decision is made by an administrator. I don't think you should be tagging things for deletion when you obviously don't understand the basics of AfD. You've made 192 edits in your 10 months history on this project. Please, learn to walk before you try to run. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really hate to put more oil on a totally unnecessary fire, but... have you also bothered to check the quality of his edits instead of merely the quantity? —Ruud 23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have. His edits seem, so far, to be very good. However, as an academic I would expect him to write to a high standard. However, article edits have almost no connexion to knowledge of the back room workings of Wikipedia. Judging by previous discussions on the user's talk page, and the way he has communicated with me on this discussion page, he has almost no clue. Quite why you need to get involved is beyond me. Can you not see the way he has interacted on this page? Telling everyone that he knows more than they do and that their oppinion is worthless, asking people not to contribute to a discussions page, and making ignorant, bizzare and false accusations. As for this "fire" being unnecessary: yes it is. I would hope you take the time to read it from start to end from an unbiased point of view. I understand that you might be trying to take him under your wing and to help him out (I have read you now deleted communications on his talk page), but the best thing you could have done is to have a quiet word with Optimering. He's totally out of line here, and you have to be able to see that. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the remarks by Optimering seem quite reasonable and polite. I do not find your description of them to be accurate at all. On the other hand, your comments in this discussion, I would characterize as polemic and rude. —Ruud 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Objectively trying to read this discussion again, yes I have to agree Optimering could have phrased his (slightly elitist, but not entirely unreasonable) concerns more eloquently. The same would apply to some of your remarks, but I could image this was due to feeling slightly offended. Shall we focus on rationally debating the suitability of inclusion of this topic instead of on form of the arguments already made? —Ruud 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, please, let's. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (And to clarify on the point some of his remarks not being unreasonable: lacking expertise on this subject does not disqualify you from taking part in this discussion but in my opinion does burden you with the obligation of doing bibliometic background research on the topic, in order to make your opinion here an informed one, which you failed to do.) —Ruud 13:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree per WP:NOT PAPERS. I am a mathematician and have more mathematical understanding that the general reader; at whom these articles should be targeted. It is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a research journal. All that aside, my original point is still valid: the main article doesn't contain the information in the nominated article; so a keep or a merger would be the best bet.— Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have. His edits seem, so far, to be very good. However, as an academic I would expect him to write to a high standard. However, article edits have almost no connexion to knowledge of the back room workings of Wikipedia. Judging by previous discussions on the user's talk page, and the way he has communicated with me on this discussion page, he has almost no clue. Quite why you need to get involved is beyond me. Can you not see the way he has interacted on this page? Telling everyone that he knows more than they do and that their oppinion is worthless, asking people not to contribute to a discussions page, and making ignorant, bizzare and false accusations. As for this "fire" being unnecessary: yes it is. I would hope you take the time to read it from start to end from an unbiased point of view. I understand that you might be trying to take him under your wing and to help him out (I have read you now deleted communications on his talk page), but the best thing you could have done is to have a quiet word with Optimering. He's totally out of line here, and you have to be able to see that. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really hate to put more oil on a totally unnecessary fire, but... have you also bothered to check the quality of his edits instead of merely the quantity? —Ruud 23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to express an opinion on an AfD discussion page? That's what these pages were invented for! As for making administrative rulings; well, that's just baffling. What administrative rulings? Where?! I posted my !vote on an AfD discussion page. You totally misunderstand the WP:AfD procedure. You posted a template on the article saying: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." That's exactly what I did, and that's what happens on AfD discussion pages: we discuss the deletion for around seven days and then, hopefully, after reaching a concusses, a decision is made by an administrator. I don't think you should be tagging things for deletion when you obviously don't understand the basics of AfD. You've made 192 edits in your 10 months history on this project. Please, learn to walk before you try to run. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fly by Night, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that out of you, Ron Ritzman and me, I was apparently the only one with any knowledge about particle swarm optimization and Accelerated PSO. So it is beyond me why you take it upon yourselves to express opinions and even make administrative rulings on the subject. Can we leave the debate before it gets too heated and just await another ruling, please? Optimering (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking notability. There are *lots* of variants of particle swarm optimization and I don't see any sourcing to show that this stands out from the others. It's not even clear that it merits space in the primary article let alone its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An out-right delete seems a little strong. Reading your reasoning, a merge would be the better option, no? — Fly by Night (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The source this is based on has only 3 independent citations, making it probably not even worth a short mention in the main article on PSO. —Ruud 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, including section headings, is 15 lines long. How may citations do you want for a 15 line article? Shall we delete Academic genealogy of computer scientists? It only has one citation and around 50 lines. What about Proofs involving the addition of natural numbers? Again; only one citation. What about Ysselsteyn? Again; only one citation. Do these articles sound familiar? They should do: you created them all. But, hey, that'd be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?! We have a saying in English: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Also, as Optimering has implied: you don't know anything about the article subject so you shouldn't really be commenting. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I did not express myself clearly enough here and you misunderstood the meaning of my comment. By "citations" I was not referring to the number of references in the Wikipedia article, but by the number of citations in academic papers to the book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms by X. S. Yang. You can verify this by clicking on the "Cited by" tab at the ACM Portal through the link I provided. Three independent citations is quite low and a good indicator this particular variation on PSO is not noteworthy. Mentioning it while not referring to the large number of other variations would be a violation of neutrality and poor editorial judgement. —Ruud 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough then. I see your point now. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I did not express myself clearly enough here and you misunderstood the meaning of my comment. By "citations" I was not referring to the number of references in the Wikipedia article, but by the number of citations in academic papers to the book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms by X. S. Yang. You can verify this by clicking on the "Cited by" tab at the ACM Portal through the link I provided. Three independent citations is quite low and a good indicator this particular variation on PSO is not noteworthy. Mentioning it while not referring to the large number of other variations would be a violation of neutrality and poor editorial judgement. —Ruud 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, including section headings, is 15 lines long. How may citations do you want for a 15 line article? Shall we delete Academic genealogy of computer scientists? It only has one citation and around 50 lines. What about Proofs involving the addition of natural numbers? Again; only one citation. What about Ysselsteyn? Again; only one citation. Do these articles sound familiar? They should do: you created them all. But, hey, that'd be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?! We have a saying in English: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Also, as Optimering has implied: you don't know anything about the article subject so you shouldn't really be commenting. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment POV Content forking is in the eye of the beholder. I ignore claims of knowing other editor's intent in creating articles as no more substantiatable than those of fortune tellers and spoon benders. Another critically flawed essay, that somehow sneaked into a guideline. Anarchangel (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.