Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasive weed optimization algorithm (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted. Relisting at request of author (of both the article and the algorithm). Notability is difficult to judge: the original paper has received 44 citations, but except for self-citations most of those citations where by papers not cited themselves. (original paper, Scopus) —Ruud 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I would like to mention that a number of "independent" citations have cited other "independent" publications, who cited the original paper. For example, consider the following paper:

- A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, A. Alipour, "Design of an E-Shaped MIMO Antenna Using IWO Algorithm for Wireless Application at 5.8 GHz", Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 90, pp. 187–203, 2009.

This paper was cited 18 times according to Google ([1])

As another example, the following paper:

- S. Karimkashi, A. A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269–1278, 2010.

is cited for 6 times according to Google ([2]).

Please note that the above-mentioned articles are published very recently. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Citation counts are not a criterion for notability so the above discussion is moot. This seems to be an area of current research that hasn't yet been covered by secondary sources. As such, a mention in another article (perhaps Genetic algorithm) may be appropriate, but this article is not written in encyclopedic style so I can't recommend a merge. There seems to be more in the article about weeds than algorithms.--RDBury (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was deleted before, looks like original research and self promotion by an author. Does not appear to be a well known/notable algorithm. Maybe it could be included in a page on genetic algorithms, but right now I don't see the evidence for a new article. MATThematical (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral / keep if significantly improved: (This was a tough one to decide upon and my apologies for not giving a more concise opinion.) I understand the arguments and concerns above, but the original paper was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, and it has apparently been used in a significant number of other publications (regardless of whether those have been cited in turn.) But should it be a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? Having studied the optimization method it appears to be a multi-agent variant of local search and as such could perhaps be mentioned in that article instead of having its own stand-alone article. I have previously thought about merging all the articles on variants of 'local search' (incl. some of the Wiki articles I've authored), but my present opinion is that there is value to having separate articles on the different variants of 'local search', as long as the number of articles is kept reasonable, because they represent markedly different research factions and the separation of articles offer better and more indepth descriptions (as opposed to e.g. the vast number of variants of particle swarm optimization, which do not merit separate Wiki articles.) In the future, Wikipedia might have many more articles on 'multi-agent local-search' optimizers which are variants of the same basic idea, and at that time the articles should be merged into one. At present, however, I don't mind having this article, BUT it must be improved significantly to become of encyclopedic standard and hence merit inclusion (the article currently speaks very little of the optimization method but reads more like ramblings on biological weed and its resilience, etc.) For article layouts that would be suitable see e.g. ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization or random optimization. As this article has been here since 2006 I would advise the contributor to hurry up and dramatically improve its quality before it gets deleted (again.) Optimering (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.