View source for English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. This has been under discussion for a full month, and shows no sign of converging to a consensus.  The keepers are arguing that there are sufficient sources.  The deleters counter that, yes, there may be citations in the literature, but they're not worth much because it's a small set of papers/authors circularly citing each other.  In any case, neither side seems to have convinced the other, and I can't see how relisting this again will make any progress. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 01:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
===[[Glowworm swarm optimization]]===


:{{la|Glowworm swarm optimization}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7#{{anchorencode:Glowworm swarm optimization}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glowworm_swarm_optimization Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|Glowworm swarm optimization}})
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]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
::See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for each of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization]], and [[Wikipedia: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? [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
*: {{ping|Bluerasberry}} See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefly_algorithm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State transition algorithm]] and [[Talk:Artificial bee colony algorithm#Deletion proposal]] for some additional background (especially concerning the reliability of those articles). —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ruud Koot}} It seems like the argument for deletion is a subjective judgment that the academic journals cited are not reliable sources in their claimed field of expertise. AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable. Among these 6 deletion discussions there is a challenge to at least 10 academic journals and 20-30 different articles published over years. It is beyond the scope of a typical AfD review to challenge what are usually the most trusted sources. Can you think of a way to briefly say why so many sources should not meet RS criteria? I see that another academic says this is bad science, but I am unable to easily process this debate. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:::: I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish highly cited "good" science (that is highly cited because it's good) from highly cited "bad" science (that is highly cited because it's part of citation circle, but otherwise mostly ignored) by some objective criterion. This distinction, and whether we want to include that science in Wikipeida, must thus depend on tacit knowledge and a subjective judgement. For me that would be:
::::# that this whole class of algorithms has been called out as being "bad" science in other papers (which I believe to have been published in more reputable venues) and by other academics, and has been barred from at least one reputable journal [http://theconversation.com/why-we-fell-out-of-love-with-algorithms-inspired-by-nature-42718][http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Metaheuristics#The_metaphor_controversy][http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/Journal+of+Heuristic+Policies+on+Heuristic+Search.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1483502-p35487524][http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/itor.12001/abstract][http://people.idsia.ch/~weyland/harmony_search.pdfpeople.idsia.ch/~weyland/harmony_search.pdf][http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221471601500010X];
::::# the observation that these algorithms are "obviously" equivalent to other older and already well-established algorithms (and thus don't add to the sum of human knowledge);
::::# the fact the most of these articles wouldn't have existed if they wouldn't have been created by single-purpose account that are, more probable than not, the authors of these papers (and that the articles on this topic [[:Category:Nature-inspired metaheuristics|that currently exist on Wikipedia]] are only a fraction of the articles [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.4186v1 that could potentially exist], if we would use just citation count as a criterion);
::::# the pragmatic consideration that we're not serving our core goal of educating our readers if we distract them from the good science with an overwhelming number of articles that present bad science as good science.
::::—''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Bluerasberry}}, you write, "AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable," but you may be overlooking the fact that determining the sources' reliability is a prerequisite to determining a topic's notability.  Recall that [[WP:N|notability]] is generally determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it is absolutely proper in a deletion discussion to mount a challenge to notability based on the reliability (or coverage, or independence) of the sources.  Furthermore, per our guideline [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], claims that a particular source is peer-reviewed should be critically examined, particularly in light of the recent explosion in predatory journals. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 10:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Keep''' I agree that it is vexatious to see poorly researched optimization algorithms dressed in fun new metaphors and terminology somehow gain traction in the academic world. David Eppstein's description as ''junk science'' is a good one. But we are here, not to right great wrongs, but to determine notability. A quick search found a pretty solid review in PLoS One [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4436220/ A Comprehensive Review of Swarm Optimization Algorithms] that goes in some depth into GSO. There are a couple of GSO specific reviews in [http://www.scientific.net/AMM.421.507 Glowworm Swarm Optimization (GSO) Algorithm for Optimization Problems: A State-of-the-Art Review] and [http://www.ijcaonline.org/proceedings/ic2it/number1/14390-1309 A Survey of Applications of Glowworm Swarm Optimization Algorithm] in less well known journals. Multiple secondary reviews by authors independent of the GSO's creators show notability of the topic. The article isn't in great shape with only primary sources, but is capable of improvement. Or we could merge into [[Swarm intelligence#Glowworm swarm optimization]] to place it in context. But either way, I don't see a good case for deletion. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 11:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

:: I think the list of algorithms in [[Swarm intelligence]] is just unnecessary dragging the quality and usefulness of that article down. Encyclopedic articles should give a balanced overview, making clear what the most influential work in a particular field is. Instead, I will likely merge most of those metaheuristics that are deemed to be "notable" into a chronologically ordered [[List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics]], while also adding a beefy introduction stating the problems with that class of algorithms in general for context. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics|list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 04:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)</small>
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 09:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms|list of Organisms-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete'''. Unencyclopedic preaching to the converted. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
*'''Redirect''' to [[Swarm intelligence]]. There may be some content here to merge elsewhere in a sentence or two about the biological underpinning of the method and what it's intended to do, but I'm not seeing a degree of coverage in secondary sources to warrant that mention in the article yet much less it's own standalone article. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It is easy to find more coverage in respectable sources such as ''[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wAi0CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false Natural Computing Algorithms]''. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 11:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 17:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
* '''Comment''' There is also an entry for this algorithm at {{slink|List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics|Glowworm swarm}}. This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to the target suggested by Ruud. The notability of this topic is beyond doubt: in addition to the source provided by Andrew, there is [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045790615000154 this] and [http://www.ijcat.com/archives/volume2/issue5/ijcatr02051015], both of which give the topic significant coverage. However, in my view the coverage is not large enough that a merge is unreasonable: indeed an article examining all of the metaheuristics inspired by nature seems to me to be slightly more useful than separate stubs or start-class articles on each. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>