Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfly optimization algorithm

Mayfly 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)

However noteworthy this may be, it doesn't seem to have been much noted. NN.

Yet links to it -- and to "Flying Fox optimization" aka "Flying Fox Optimization Algorithm", another creation of Konstantinos Zervoudakis and Stelios Tsafarakis -- have been added rather vigorously, to "Genetic algorithm", to "List of metaphor-based metaheuristics", to "Table of metaheuristics", to "Heuristic (computer science)", and to "Differential evolution".

The article was created by someone with a declared COI, and the recent vigorous linking to it seems compatible with undeclared CoI. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main paper on this topic has 127 citations already, as listed in Google Scholar, high for a 2020 publication. Nevertheless I strongly believe that this whole line of biologically inspired optimization algorithms, despite some initial successes, has devolved to become largely or almost entirely junk, or maybe pyramid-scheme science (if you hype up your topic enough to bring in enough new researchers to cite your papers, you can get high citation counts and succeed in measures of quality and performance based on citation count regardless of the boilerplate nature of the actual research). For a more informed insider opinion reaching similar conclusions, see "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room", doi:10.1007/s11721-021-00202-9. The question for us here, though, is, can Wikipedia guidelines justify removing content because we believe it to be junk, or must we keep popular junk? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomment: "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" is open access, and very readable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion to delete an article from wikipedia that lacks logical or scientific evidence with only the valid argument the reference to the idea of the article "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" lacks seriousness and I cannot characterize it something other than funny. As I imagine the author of the comment has not understood what the article he quoted mentions, I beg him to consider in which journal the mayfly algorithm is published, what is the impact factor of the journal, who are the reviewers of the journal and many other similar information that we all have in our mind when judging a scientific paper. So how is it concluded that an article say that algorithms of this type are junk? Does this article focus on the features of published unreliable algorithms? Do not try to create what is called in philosophy a “logical fallacy”. If you want, prove your claims.

My view is to put aside our subjective judgments and our ideology of what is junk and what is not and let those who work on the field to judge it. With proofs. Besides, I do not think it results from the paper's references, several of which are in internationally renowned journals and from scientists in the field stating its validity, that as an algorithm it is usefulness. That is why you should let time judge it and not try to create impressions. Useless to me are the comments that try to persuade without any serious counter-argument, depriving the freedom of speech of its creators. Kostas 0231 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those 127 citations include MDPI journals and physics conference proceedings, neither of which are known for a high standard of review. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, David Eppstein we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. Elemimele (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for example, Karami et al. (2021) just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Holding my nose, I say that other things being equal, junkiness is fine. Popularity isn't a criterion for inclusion, although it tends to determine written-about-ness, which determines "notability", which is a criterion. If a metaphor-based metaheuristic (or whatever) becomes "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia) then its exposure (whether simultaneous or subsequent) as worthless doesn't diminish its "notability". However, "notability" needn't, and here shouldn't, be simply determined by an easily grasped (but notoriously inflated) number that Google puts atop a page of search results. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have totally misunderstood the complete nature of an academic paper. And I can't accept the term "junk" about an algorithm that has been published on a high impact factor journal and used as the main algorithm in various research and was reviewed by well known researchers in the field.

This is really offensive.

It also appears that you searched about the 127 citations but you totally ignored that too many of those papers use this algorithm as the main algorithm of the research.

This is also offensive.

Moreover it feels like the main problem is the popularity of a method, which feels wrong.

I will add the papers that use the mayfly algorithm in the wikipage the following days.

As regards the paper that you mentioned regarding the quality of an algorithm, the mayfly algorithm was built, compared and tested according to this paper and according to various other metaheuristic-introduction papers.

I need about one week to improve the page. GusRDRM (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]