Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spinningspark (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 19 December 2022 (→Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection: WP:N does not say that.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection

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

Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]

@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]
You are shifting the goalposts again. First you want sources, then sources with lots of cites. Now, so you say, primary research is ruled out. Nowhere in WP:N does it say that primary research papers don't add to notability. Of course they do. Lot's of people researching a topic is almost the definition of notability in a science subject. We must be cautious how we use primary sources, but they are not proscribed from being used at all, and even if they were, that does not stop them adding to notability. Notability does not fail because the tabloid press has not run sensationalist stories about it. Overview papers are not primary sources and are pretty much de riguer in medical articles. The first sentence of "Evolutionary algorithms for fuzzy control system design" is "This paper provides an overview on evolutionary learning methods for the automated design and optimization of fuzzy logic controllers." It discusses landmark recognition. And it has 188 cites. So what additional requirement are you going to add to rule that one out as well? SpinningSpark 16:58, 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolutionary_Algorithm_for_Landmark_Detection&oldid=1128342398"