Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smell Detection Agent Optimization Algorithm

Smell Detection Agent Optimization Algorithm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article (under the current and various alternative names) has been speedied several times for various reasons, and has now appeared again. The article describes a scientific concept closely associated with the creating editor, and cites only sources authored by them, hence a WP:COI clearly exists. I cannot find a single reliable secondary source to support this, therefore fails WP:GNG notability and basic WP:V verifiability. This may be WP:NEO, and possibly an attempt to use WP to boost the subject's legitimacy. Last but not least, while the earlier attempts were direct copypastes from the source, this has been paraphrased, which makes it also quite likely WP:OR.

The creating editor demonstrably pays no heed to warnings, so if this AfD results in deletion, I would suggest salting this and the related earlier names as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned names seem to be SDA Optimization Algorithm and Smell Detection Agent algorithm. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable and fails WP:GNG User3749 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create-protect - two previous incarnations of this article have been deleted as a blatant copyright violation. While this ordinarily would have absolutely no bearing on this iteration, I have just had to remove a good 500 bytes of copyvio from the current article, and if this AfD closes as keep it'll probably need revdel. However, the article is mostly original research without any secondary sources cited, or it seems, available to cite - it thus fails our notability and verifiability policies and needs to go. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CRYSTAL: except for a vague description of the algorithm, the article contains only a long list of "can be used for", without any indication that "it has been used for". Also, there is no evidence that the algorithm improves the state of the art in any way. If it does, we must wait for articles that demonstrate this. Also, WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". D.Lazard (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There were some copyvios in this article, but they have been removed this edit. User3749 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thanks for nominating this. I considered it last night but it was too late so I waited. Delete, per the same reasons above. The use of a single source and mention of the author by the creator with the same name reeks of self-promotion. We should be sure to delete SDA Optimization Algorithm after, which I've redirected for now. A S U K I T E 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG with basically no independent secondary RS coverage of this specific algorithm (basically just this and this from the article creator). — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]