Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower pollination algorithm


 * 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 merge to Swarm intelligence.  MBisanz  talk 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Flower pollination algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually): These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:
 * Articles for deletion/Bat algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Cuckoo search
 * Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Flower pollination algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Fowler–Yang equations
 * Articles for deletion/Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis
 * Articles for deletion/Eagle strategy
 * Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
 * Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
 * Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
 * I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge: This article claims to be about an algorithm, but it does not describe an algorithm, it rambles through supposed characteristics of something else (pollination??), and implies, I suppose, that these characteristics somehow define an algorithm. This is largely pseudoscientific babble. If this particular researcher is really notable, there should be an article about him/her, noting the production of an open-ended list of algorithms with flowery (ha!) names. I defy anyone to claim that the bulk of this article is a contribution to human knowledge, which WP claims to be. (And is, overall, the largest single collection of knowledge ever created by humanity, while including the largest collection of total garbage ever...) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Swarm intelligence mainly per WP:NOTJOURNAL. In order for a concept to be notable, we cannot be relying on just the original author's publications, but instead need some secondary coverage such as reviews citing the original work (in this case a book chapter). Right now the article seems to be written as if it was someone trying to justify a new idea.


 * There are a number of papers citing this method, but like many of the other algorithm articles, we need secondary sources that explain the method and what it's used for rather than relying on WP:PRIMARY sources. I would generally want to see these algorithm articles potentially merged to Swarm intelligence to see if they are even noteworthy there, and then spin them off as content forks if they can actually build up enough content there. I honestly don't see that happening though as that section likely should be reduced to simply say a number of algorithms have been modeled after biological systems while only noting examples cited by strong secondary sources rather than a non-independent source for each method. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2016 (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.