English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Quality control and genetic algorithms

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 keep. Resolve the WP:COI issue, but not on AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality control and genetic algorithms

This content could as well be explained in either two separate articles or both. The subject itself lacks notability. Google scholar and Google books give no hits on the topic "quality control and genetic algorithms". Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

- What does the phrase "either two separate articles or both" mean? "Two separate articles" means two separate articles. "Both" means there are two of them and you presume we know which two you mean. "Either...or..." means one alternative or the other. The phrase as a whole does not appear to make sense. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  - Oh.... OK, now I'm guessing you mean either one of the two separate articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Merge any useful material to genetic algorithms Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the applications section in genetic algorithms is very weak - a laundry list of (often) unsourced applications. Maybe better is for the article to be kept as the kern on a article on application of GA or the like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The article should be kept. Regarding the "notability" of the subject, a search for ("quality control" AND "genetic algorithms" ) of the Scopus scientific database gives 347 articles published in scientific journals. A search in Google gives 16500 pages, in Google Scholar gives 3900 articles, and in Google Books gives 638 books. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)— Aristides Hatjimihail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Plenty of relevant articles on scholar about the application of GAs to control systems and QA. That one of the editors has published in the field shouldn't be regarded as a problem in and of itself. Unomi (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Stub/Merge Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Searching for research citing the existing references failed to turn up other potential sources on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment:The last remark is inaccurate. The following is a scientific article on the GAs based QC citing the 1st reference of the Quality control and genetic algorithms: He, David, and Arsen Grigoryan. 2006. Joint statistical design of double sampling x and s charts. European Journal of Operational Research 168 (1):122-142.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then find a way to incorporate it into the article. I didn't find that one in my searching. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - both quality control and genetic algorithms are notable topics and have their own articles. This article offers little additional coverage on these topics and described only a particular application of GA to quality control as an optimization tool. There is a strong notability concern as mentioned above, since this is not considered a subfield of either optimization or control. The number of citations is irreverent - any notable algorithm such as GA are widely applied to hundreds of different fields and it doesn't make this one any more notable. --Jiuguang (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment:Regarding the last remark, I think that it is useful combined subjects to be included in an online encyclopaedia, as the approximately 3000 views per year of the Quality control and genetic algorithms prove. Of course they should be linked to the component subjects. Concerning the number of the citations of either subject it is true that it could be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant though the number of the citations of the combined subject, in our case ("quality control" AND "genetic algorithms"), that shows that its components are correlated. Therefore, a valid entry in Wikipedia, with references from the scientific literature could not harm. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The inclusion of this debate in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions gives me the opportunity to point out that the subject of the Quality control and genetic algorithms was presented for first time during the 25th Oak Ridge Conference on Advanced Analytical Systems and Concepts of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, in 1993. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Much of the information probably should be merged into quality control and/or genetic algorithms. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, I believe the Clin Chem reference is more than enough for verifiability though I am not sure about notability. The conflict of interest issue does need to be resolved. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is a quotation from Conflict of interest: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Here is my interpretation of the situation, please do correct me. Both Quality Control and to a lesser degree Genetic algorithms are not very well developed, the content in the article under discussion could serve to give those other articles more 'meat' especially Quality Control. If both of the articles I mentioned were already sufficiently developed, this discussion would not be taking place. Genetic Algorithms has a long list of 'applications' that contain links to articles that do not even mention genetic algorithms, while wikipedia is not a 'howto' this lack of depth is clearly, to me, a shortcoming. Hopefully in the future we will have many articles akin to the one that is being attempted to be deleted here.

I would hope that Aristides finds time to help improve other articles than this one, perhaps giving Quality Control an alternative to 'Refer to the definition by Merriam-Webster for further information', but contributing in the field that he is published in is not something we can hold against him. I do not see any indication that the article in its current state is overtly promotional. I also hope that should this article be merged into Quality Control that he continues to contribute to 'the work in progress'. Unomi (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Week keep I'm guessing that there is quite a lot of work on the intersection of genetic algorithms and quality control. Both are giant fields and I would be most surprised if there were not many people working on this. Indeed Google scholar gives me 3900 papers which mention both terms.[1] The question for me is whether this article is representative of that body of work or if it is just one authors view of the field. Of that I'm not sure. The idea of incorperating some of this article into the QC or GA algorithms is good but it really only justifies a paragraph in summary style, too big a section would be undue weight for the target article. --Salix (talk): 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Both quality control and genetic algorithms are huge fields. Aristides has argued convincingly, and provided WP:RS, that Quality control and genetic algorithms exists as a separate specialist field. I see no trace whatsoever of WP:COI in that article - Aristides evidently can write encyclopedic WP:NPOV articles on topics of which he has specialist knowledge. Please continue contributing to Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2009 (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.