Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplified swarm optimization

Simplified swarm optimization

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

I was tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is something in computer science. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swarm_intelligence until it matures enough to stand on it's own like Particle_swarm_optimization --DeVerm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and clean up, or merge to Particle swarm optimization. The optimization algorithm described in this article appears to be a simplification of the particle swarm optimization algorithm, so it might be worthwhile to cover this subject within the PSO article. Maybe the original author of this article should be notified of this discussion and given the chance to edit it to give it some context. In fact, the original author should have been notified, regardless. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't really a good deletion reason. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dozens of variants of PSO, most of them not very notable. I'll have to look closer into this on, but as WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't a very good reason for deletion, it shouldn't be a very good reason to keep either. —Ruud 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable variation of Particle swarm optimization (PSO). Of the 5 references, only one relates to the subject, and it's an unrefereed and uncited report. There has indeed also been a 2011 journal paper by Yeh, but it has not yet been cited at all, so there is no indication that this variation of PSO is notable. In addition, the term "Simplified Swarm Optimization" also appears in a number of publications by Noorhaniza Wahid, but in those cases it refers to a different method of the same name, which makes this a poor article title. -- 202.124.74.243 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the IP care to elaborate on these (incorrect afaik) statements? You first say that only one of the 5 references relates to the subject, only to follow up explaining that others are also related but you don't like them?! I just read through the linked reference from Kennedy and Eberhart and it is about this article, no matter how they call it (mostly "simplified version" etc.) Also, I do not follow your requirements for reports... it sounds like you only accept reports from scientists when they have references for their findings? Would be history instead of science imho. --DeVerm (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]