Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops 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 no consensus. Consensus not to delete, but keep or merge can still be discussed.  Sandstein  08:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent Water Drops algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization and Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. —Ruud 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I love how every one of these "bio-inspired" algorithms claims to be a potential solution to the travelling salesman problem. Surprised they don't just claim they've solved P=NP by now. To others looking at the refs, note that the IEEE sources are not the IEEE journal itself, but spin-offs dedicated to incredibly specific disciplines tailor-made for this niche of computer science. Jergling (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose for each of Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Swarm intelligence. It seems like there is a bit of secondary citation/usage of the algorithm, but that doesn't seem to indicate standalone notability because the publications are only mentioning the algorithm rather than giving in-depth secondary coverage. For a potential merge, someone would need to look over the sources to find what they consider a decent secondary source summarizing the method such as from the lede, This algorithm contains a few essential elements of natural water drops and actions and reactions that occur between river's bed and the water drops that flow within. That itself may not be notable or need to be rewritten over at swarm intelligence too though. All the rest wouldn't be worth merging much less a standalone article per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTJOURNAL. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination talks of "few references" when the page when nominated actually had 22 separate references and most of them used the subject title. I have made an independent source search and had no difficulty finding a respectable book source from the many choices available. Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 6 August 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.