Talk:Gaussian adaptation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

About the notability[edit]

I think Gaussian adaptation has a certain notability in the sense that it concerns not only technical problems, but should also be of interest to a wider audience because it's possible applicability to evolution. --Kjells (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Articles by you (the originator of the term) are not "independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge GA has been discussed by Pinel, 1981, Stehr, 2005, and Brooks, 2001. I think these sources are reliable. I also think the coverage is significant in the sense that Pinel represents the Canadian telecom industry, Stehr represents the university sphere in Germany and Brooks is a Canadian zoologist. How many Genetic algorithms have been referenced by a zoologist? To my knowledge those authors are independent of me. Or, do you mean that the number of different authors is to small? How many different independent authors are needed to make the article notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjells (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] The coverage only needs to provide enough information to write a short, verifiable article." (WP:NOTE)

The recruitment of an expert[edit]

Dr. Lars Taxén, probably the most qualified expert, is very busy at the ime being, but is willing to improve the article later in October.--Kjells (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no independent sources use the term[edit]

The article was recently deprodded with the argument that it's "referenced in several other places besides Conservapedia". I used a Google search and found that on the first couple of pages the references were entries by G Kjellström, the author of this article (with one exception, a paper by L Taxén). Kjellström apparently has posted a great number of blog posts, comments, entries in Wikipedia etc. under a variety of names such as Rogerg, Gregor and Kjells. There seems to be few, if any, secondary sources that mention gaussian adaptation so I really question the notability of the concept, especially concerning evolution.Sjö (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Wikiproject?[edit]

Unless someone can give a good explanation why an evolutionary algorithm designed for the maximization of manufacturing is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, the project tag should be removed. Also, the "too technical for most readers to understand" tag should be removed per WP:TECHNICAL, which says "Technical templates added without explanation are likely to be either ignored or removed." I am going to wait seven days and then remove both tags unless someone provides a good reason why they should stay. Guy Macon 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed Technical tag, removed ChristianityWikiProject tag, removed website spam (to a dead website), gave user a spam warning. Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]