Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection

Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection

[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)

Evolutionary algorithms are real, but there's no indication here that this is a notable application, and the article is of very low quality. A WP:BEFORE search yields squat. Basically no results on Google Scholar -- only one, and it's a list likely scraped from Wikipedia. jp×g 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. The subject is notable, but the article is a mess which is why the article should be drafted so other editors can fix the issues wrong with it.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST such as "A Novel Genetic Algorithm for 3D Facial Landmark Localization", "Landmark-based music recognition system optimisation using genetic algorithms" and "Research on genetic algorithm based on tabu search for landmark image recognition". I agree the article is in a poor state but I don't see any purpose in draftifying unless someone is volunteering to work on it. The creator has not been here for twelve years. Sending it to draft would just be slow-motion deletion. SpinningSpark 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark: I respect the effort here; I hadn't been able to dredge these up. Still, I am not convinced that a standalone article is warranted -- three papers with seventeen citations between them seems like it would make for one or two paragraphs at best. If I am wrong, and these end up being the bulwark of a beautiful article on evolutionary algorithms for landmark detection, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. jp×g 08:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick the example papers for the number of cites. I picked them because they explicitly had both "landmark detection" and "evolutionary|genetic algorithm" in the titles which made them unarguably on topic. But if number of cites is your concern then Automatic Tuning of a Fuzzy Visual System Using Evolutionary Algorithms has 41 cites and included in the text "Landmark detection is a fundamental task in autonomous...". The first paper I linked has 28 cites alone according to gscholar so I don't know how you got to 17 total. SpinningSpark 14:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: The sources linked are primary research papers and under Wikipedia:Notability general notability guidelines notability is established through coverage of secondary sources. Even if a secondary source existed, I would argue that this topic is best handled within a section of Evolutionary algorithm and as I'd argue there is nothing of value currently in that article it is best just deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The topic is best covered by a section in the evolutionary algorithms page, also there is a lack of secondary sources covering this topic, suggesting it fails WP:NOTE (but even if there was I would argue it is best covered in the aforementioned article). There is nothing of value in the article in its current state so a merge is not necessary hence I vote delete. EvilxFish (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]