Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituent grammatical evolution


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Constituent grammatical evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Original research lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. PROD arbitrarily removed. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) --
 * Keep WP:GNG. This proposed algorithm was presented for first time the last summer in one of the most credible AI conferences. All references are included for further investigation by the reader. There is a strong research activity in Grammatical Evolution area with a lot of proposed variations and improvements. One of them is CGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorngr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:ACADEMIC pertains to persons and seems inapplicable here. The most relevant guideline seems to be WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 22:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, corrected.
 * Comment. The general notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The sources are self-published, rather than independent. Accordingly, the threshold for notability is not met. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of sources. Topic may well become notable but, until then, delete without prejudice for creation at a later date. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Note How about we look on the internet, and work out how encyclopedic the topic is? If it is encyclopedic, either leave it as it is, or delete everything and replace it with a short verifiable stub. If the topic is inherently not suitable for an encyclopedia, then delete.--Coin945 (talk) 12:58 pm, Today (UTC+8)
 * Comment. Before we present articles for community discussion or participate therein, the process calls for looking for sources to ascertain whether or not the topic is notable. Lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, the article is clearly inappropriate (regardless of the size). If you have questions about the process, you can find more information about contributing to deletion discussions here, or feel free to contact me. Best regards,   Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do know how the deletion process works. I was merely pointing out that none of the discussion (by the time i wrote that comment) actually tried to find sources, and instead were only talking theoretically about what sources there may or may not be. All I meant was, don't just talk about it, go and find them..--Coin945 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are no theories made by others here, outside of the article creator's theories about the subject. You have assumed that other editors have failed due diligence in participating in this discussion. Prior to commenting here, did you perform due diligence and look for significant reliable and secondary sources that would support notability? If so, could you please list the sources that you found? If you have not made a search, why not? And why are you participating in this discussion without following the process, while finding fault with others, hypothetically doing the same? If you did run a search and came up empty, why make a comment that implies that sources exist, but others have failed to follow through in presenting them? Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG. CGE is a new algorithm. Therefore, is not yet widely known. But, the article points to resources hosted by IJCAI (paper and presentation) where a full description of the algorithm is provided as well as detailed experiments setup (full configuration) and results which allow everyone to rerun the experiments and reproduce the results. I don't see the reason of why such an endeavour of new researchers should be not included in wikipedia in order to be accessible by other researchers interested in the same topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorngr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)  — Aragorngr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment. Second recommendation added by the article creator has been stricken. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Grammatical Evolution, from which it is derived. It can be broken out when and if more papers are published.    Th e S te ve   06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Merging would be inappropriate. The content is based solely on original research. No independent "papers" have been published. The article and subject lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. It neither belongs as a standalone article or as a part of another from which it is derived. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is accepted by a credible conference with a strict review process why doesn't merit a wiki page? Spread knowledge! That's Internet about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.70.12 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of established knowledge: hence the need for multiple reliable secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete – I didn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Maybe someday it'll be reviewed and discussed among linguists, but it doesn't seem to be now. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every new scientific concept is notable. A presentation at a single AI conference is not nearly enough. From the keep arguments, I at first thought they were saying it had been the subject of a major conference, which is the sort of coverage that does show notability. At this point, asking for coverage is like asking for coverage of anything else that has been newly published but not reviewed or referred to in a substantial way: too soon--and the arguments for keeping show in fact that the intention of the article here is primarily to promote the concept.  DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * 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.