Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probabilistic solution discovery 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   delete. Article is found to be original research. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Probabilistic solution discovery algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article does not meet our inclusion criteria. The page serve no other purpose than to promote José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez, the non-notable author who owns the work. On this note, José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez should wait until his Algorithm becomes notable and widely discussed, then will someone with no WP:COI, who knows what a sensible article content should be and knows how to link to the title will write about it here.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the author of the article, I think this algorithm is becoming noticed in the literature as about 42 peer-reviewed articles have used this method to solve optimization problems. It is important to keep this article available in Wiki because it describes a technique that belong to Evolutionary algorithms and was shown to be a useful one. The author has no interest to promote José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez or his co-author. I have modified the article to fix its weaknesses and will continue to modify it as long as my time allows. Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. In reply to the above that it may be useful is not a criteria. Nor does it need to be here for people to find it; they can refer to the original papers. It needs reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources other than the original papers, which discuss it in depth to establish notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - this seems to be original research, which we do not publish, by a single primary author, for whom we are not a free resume host. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original concept. Antigng (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment With all due respect to your opinions, I wonder why these articles, which talk about similar techniques, were published in Wikipedia. Those articles are Harmony search, Evolutionary programming, Gene expression programming. Evolution strategies, Interactive evolutionary algorithm, Differential evolution, Neuroevolution, Learning classifier system, Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) • contribs) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether other subjects are notable or not is an entirely separate matter.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. None of the above delete votes make much sense to me. The latter two are simply way off base: this is not original research, it is referenced to papers in academic journals. As for the vote of JohnBlackburne, peer-reviewed journals are indeed secondary sources, so if the author can provide some examples of papers using this method which are independent of the research group all the current examples are based on, this will be an easy keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can click on the "Scholar" link above to find some. It finds only 25, not 42, for me, and the majority are by the author of the method, so other papers citing it are very few, nowhere near enough for notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use the keyword "Probabilistic Solution Discovery Algorithm" not "Probabilistic Solution Discovery Algorithm (PSDA)" when searching in the scholar. You will get 42 research results.Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just added 4 other references which are independent from the group created the algorithm.Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term only seems to appear in some poorly cited papers by Ramirez-Marquez and Rocco, so not notable. The references added by Muaafa appear to refer to different forms of EA. They do not mention the subject of this article. -- 120.17.54.158 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if that algorithm had made it into Nature, which it did not, where is the proof of notability? Passing the editorial board / peer review of a serious journal only proves that it is respectable research. We are looking for stuff that has a lasting and/or important impact on the field, and no, articles by the author (or his labmates) are not reliable sources for that: I have yet to read an article of original research that does not begin by some variant of "the sub-sub-sub-domain in which we will present some result is the key to the whole of biology/physics". Tigraan (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics of this discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2015 (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.