Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm

Intelligent Water Drops algorithm

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

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love how every one of these "bio-inspired" algorithms claims to be a potential solution to the travelling salesman problem. Surprised they don't just claim they've solved P=NP by now. To others looking at the refs, note that the IEEE sources are not the IEEE journal itself, but spin-offs dedicated to incredibly specific disciplines tailor-made for this niche of computer science. Jergling (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]