543:
has communicated with me on this discussion page, he has almost no clue. Quite why you need to get involved is beyond me. Can you not see the way he has interacted on this page? Telling everyone that he knows more than they do and that their oppinion is worthless, asking people not to contribute to a discussions page, and making ignorant, bizzare and false accusations. As for this "fire" being unnecessary: yes it is. I would hope you take the time to read it from start to end from an unbiased point of view. I understand that you might be trying to take him under your wing and to help him out (I have read you now deleted communications on his talk page), but the best thing you could have done is to have a quiet word with
Optimering. He's totally out of line here, and you have to be able to see that.
640:. I am a mathematician and have more mathematical understanding that the general reader; at whom these articles should be targeted. It is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a research journal. All that aside, my original point is still valid: the main article doesn't contain the information in the nominated article; so a keep or a merger would be the best bet.
625:(And to clarify on the point some of his remarks not being unreasonable: lacking expertise on this subject does not disqualify you from taking part in this discussion but in my opinion does burden you with the obligation of doing bibliometic background research on the topic, in order to make your opinion here an informed one, which you failed to do.) —
399:
for deleting the article have been made very clear. Since I have more important things to do, if you are still unsure beyond this point you really need to obtain confirmation of its notability from independent sources, e.g. professors or renowned researchers in the field. (Ironically, it is quite possible that they will refer you to me.)
497:" That's exactly what I did, and that's what happens on AfD discussion pages: we discuss the deletion for around seven days and then, hopefully, after reaching a concusses, a decision is made by an administrator. I don't think you should be tagging things for deletion when you obviously don't understand the basics of AfD. You've made
582:
Objectively trying to read this discussion again, yes I have to agree
Optimering could have phrased his (slightly elitist, but not entirely unreasonable) concerns more eloquently. The same would apply to some of your remarks, but I could image this was due to feeling slightly offended. Shall we focus
398:
and their intent cannot be known, of course, but that is only a minor point. The real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify an independent
Knowledge article, which is not the case. I feel I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject and my arguments
339:
is referenced under 'Yang' in the main article, and is given similar weight as other references of equal relevance (which is to say that Yang's work is not unique in its scientific contribution and hence does not deserve special treatment in the main article). Knowledge would become severely bloated
542:
Yes, I have. His edits seem, so far, to be very good. However, as an academic I would expect him to write to a high standard. However, article edits have almost no connexion to knowledge of the back room workings of
Knowledge. Judging by previous discussions on the user's talk page, and the way he
226:
is already included in the main article, see the 'Yang' reference. So this is a clear case of content forking, apparently with the intent of promoting or giving unjustified weight to one such variant. This is also suggested by the fact that the article was inserted by a couple of single-purpose
488:
What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to express an opinion on an AfD discussion page? That's what these pages were invented for! As for making administrative rulings; well, that's just baffling. What administrative rulings? Where?! I posted my !vote on an AfD
824:
by X. S. Yang. You can verify this by clicking on the "Cited by" tab at the ACM Portal through the link I provided. Three independent citations is quite low and a good indicator this particular variation on PSO is not noteworthy. Mentioning it while not referring to the large number of other
876:
POV Content forking is in the eye of the beholder. I ignore claims of knowing other editor's intent in creating articles as no more substantiatable than those of fortune tellers and spoon benders. Another critically flawed essay, that somehow sneaked into a guideline.
417:…". So what? I'm a mathematician but I don't go around telling people I know more than they do and that their opinion on maths articles is worthless. You'll find a very large proportion of Wikipedians are academics; so you're just one of the rank and file here.
344:
seeks to prevent. I am supposedly an expert on the subject (please see my edit history) and I can't readily think of any PSO variant that would merit its independent article. To me this is a clear case of content forking (possibly with promotional intent and
819:
I'm afraid I did not express myself clearly enough here and you misunderstood the meaning of my comment. By "citations" I was not referring to the number of references in the
Knowledge article, but by the number of citations in academic papers to the book
694:
as lacking notability. There are *lots* of variants of particle swarm optimization and I don't see any sourcing to show that this stands out from the others. It's not even clear that it merits space in the primary article let alone its own article.
573:
Actually, the remarks by
Optimering seem quite reasonable and polite. I do not find your description of them to be accurate at all. On the other hand, your comments in this discussion, I would characterize as polemic and rude.
474:. So it is beyond me why you take it upon yourselves to express opinions and even make administrative rulings on the subject. Can we leave the debate before it gets too heated and just await another ruling, please?
165:
363:
Why would someone want to "promote" a PSO variant? It's not exactly a product for sale. Isn't it possible that this article simply was created by a new user with an interest in the subject and not for some
786:? Again; only one citation. Do these articles sound familiar? They should do: you created them all. But, hey, that'd be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?! We have a saying in English: "
126:
159:
779:
248:
335:, etc. There are certain trends in that research and representative work should be referenced in the main articles to give the Wiki reader a concise overview. The
394:
In academia people are 'rewarded' according to the number of publications they make and the number of citations of their work. The identity of the creators of
531:
I really hate to put more oil on a totally unnecessary fire, but... have you also bothered to check the quality of his edits instead of merely the quantity? —
196:
I declined a PROD on this article but the prodder is insistant that this should be deleted. The original rationale from the talk page can be viewed
466:
Fly by Night, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that out of you, Ron
Ritzman and me, I was apparently the only one with any knowledge about
62:
99:
94:
214:
When I wrote the reason for deleting the article I was unaware of the name of the WP rule justifying deletion, now I know it is called
705:
103:
222:(see e.g. Google Scholar) and Knowledge should only list a few representative ones in the main article. A reference to the source of
499:
86:
774:
The article, including section headings, is 15 lines long. How may citations do you want for a 15 line article? Shall we delete
323:. Briefly stated, it is a highly experimental research field, as I mentioned above there are literally thousands of variants of
775:
17:
180:
340:
if all such variants were listed, either in the main article, or even worse, in independent articles. This is precisely what
790:" Also, as Optimering has implied: you don't know anything about the article subject so you shouldn't really be commenting.
147:
413:
That's the beauty of
Knowledge: it's a community. You're losing any support you might have had by saying things like "…
467:
324:
316:
219:
583:
on rationally debating the suitability of inclusion of this topic instead of on form of the arguments already made? —
368:? Lots of people create accounts, do some quick editing, (which sometimes includes new articles) and lose interest.--
901:
341:
215:
141:
36:
900:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
886:
860:
831:
814:
765:
743:
710:
664:
631:
618:
589:
567:
537:
526:
483:
441:
408:
377:
358:
346:
306:
263:
236:
208:
137:
68:
719:
An out-right delete seems a little strong. Reading your reasoning, a merge would be the better option, no?
850:
804:
733:
701:
654:
608:
557:
516:
431:
332:
296:
197:
90:
882:
373:
259:
204:
187:
637:
479:
475:
471:
404:
400:
395:
354:
350:
336:
232:
228:
223:
82:
74:
495:
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the
Articles for deletion page.
173:
52:
49:
839:
793:
722:
696:
643:
597:
546:
505:
420:
328:
285:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
153:
878:
369:
255:
200:
504:
in your 10 months history on this project. Please, learn to walk before you try to run. —
827:
761:
627:
585:
576:
533:
490:
365:
320:
315:
I should perhaps presume that the
Wikipedians who respond to this are not experts on
282:. So it isn't clear to me how the main article includes the content of this article.
120:
759:, making it probably not even worth a short mention in the main article on PSO. —
756:
783:
825:
variations would be a violation of neutrality and poor editorial judgement. —
415:
I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject
278:– The main article that you mention does not even contain the word
48:. Insufficient sources to show that this is particularly notable.
894:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
778:? It only has one citation and around 50 lines. What about
493:
procedure. You posted a template on the article saying: "
788:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
116:
112:
108:
172:
349:
to avoid detection) and the page should be deleted.
227:accounts. Finally, the article is of low quality.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
904:). No further edits should be made to this page.
780:Proofs involving the addition of natural numbers
836:That's fair enough then. I see your point now.
489:discussion page. You totally misunderstand the
249:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
186:
8:
243:
776:Academic genealogy of computer scientists
822:Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms
247:: This debate has been included in the
782:? Again; only one citation. What about
755:The source this is based on has only
218:. There are thousands of variants to
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
69:05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
887:09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
861:14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
832:02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
815:00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
766:23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
744:19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
711:17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
665:14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
632:13:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
619:14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
590:02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
580:02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
568:00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
538:23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
527:19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
484:07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
442:16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
409:15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
378:14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
359:07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
307:13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
264:01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
237:07:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
209:01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
468:particle swarm optimization
325:particle swarm optimization
317:particle swarm optimization
220:particle swarm optimization
921:
897:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
757:3 independent citations
333:differential evolution
594:Yes, please, let's.
342:WP:Content forking
216:WP:Content forking
44:The result was
709:
329:genetic algorithm
266:
252:
912:
899:
859:
858:
855:
854:
846:
813:
812:
809:
808:
800:
742:
741:
738:
737:
729:
699:
663:
662:
659:
658:
650:
617:
616:
613:
612:
604:
566:
565:
562:
561:
553:
525:
524:
521:
520:
512:
502:
440:
439:
436:
435:
427:
347:WP:sock puppetry
305:
304:
301:
300:
292:
253:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
920:
919:
915:
914:
913:
911:
910:
909:
908:
902:deletion review
895:
852:
851:
848:
840:
837:
806:
805:
802:
794:
791:
735:
734:
731:
723:
720:
656:
655:
652:
644:
641:
636:I disagree per
610:
609:
606:
598:
595:
559:
558:
555:
547:
544:
518:
517:
514:
506:
503:
498:
472:Accelerated PSO
433:
432:
429:
421:
418:
396:Accelerated PSO
366:devious purpose
337:Accelerated PSO
298:
297:
294:
286:
283:
224:Accelerated PSO
133:
97:
83:Accelerated PSO
81:
78:
75:Accelerated PSO
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
918:
916:
907:
906:
890:
889:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
769:
768:
749:
748:
747:
746:
714:
713:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
623:
622:
621:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
321:metaheuristics
310:
309:
268:
267:
240:
239:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
917:
905:
903:
898:
892:
891:
888:
884:
880:
875:
872:
871:
862:
856:
847:
845:
844:
835:
834:
833:
830:
829:
823:
818:
817:
816:
810:
801:
799:
798:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
767:
764:
763:
758:
754:
751:
750:
745:
739:
730:
728:
727:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
707:
703:
698:
693:
690:
689:
666:
660:
651:
649:
648:
639:
638:WP:NOT PAPERS
635:
634:
633:
630:
629:
624:
620:
614:
605:
603:
602:
593:
592:
591:
588:
587:
581:
579:
578:
571:
570:
569:
563:
554:
552:
551:
541:
540:
539:
536:
535:
530:
529:
528:
522:
513:
511:
510:
501:
496:
492:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
443:
437:
428:
426:
425:
416:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
308:
302:
293:
291:
290:
281:
277:
273:
270:
269:
265:
261:
257:
250:
246:
242:
241:
238:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
896:
893:
873:
843:Fly by Night
842:
841:
826:
821:
797:Fly by Night
796:
795:
787:
760:
752:
726:Fly by Night
725:
724:
697:CRGreathouse
691:
647:Fly by Night
646:
645:
626:
601:Fly by Night
600:
599:
584:
575:
572:
550:Fly by Night
549:
548:
532:
509:Fly by Night
508:
507:
494:
424:Fly by Night
423:
422:
414:
289:Fly by Night
288:
287:
279:
275:
271:
244:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
45:
43:
31:
28:
879:Anarchangel
370:Ron Ritzman
280:accelerated
256:Ron Ritzman
201:Ron Ritzman
160:free images
784:Ysselsteyn
476:Optimering
401:Optimering
351:Optimering
229:Optimering
500:192 edits
127:View log
874:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
753:Delete
692:Delete
491:WP:AfD
138:Google
104:delete
46:delete
276:Merge
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
883:talk
853:talk
828:Ruud
807:talk
762:Ruud
736:talk
657:talk
628:Ruud
611:talk
586:Ruud
577:Ruud
560:talk
534:Ruud
519:talk
480:talk
470:and
434:talk
405:talk
374:talk
355:talk
319:and
299:talk
272:Keep
260:talk
245:Note
233:talk
205:talk
198:here
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
274:or
254:--
188:TWL
125:– (
885:)
838:—
792:—
721:—
704:|
642:—
596:—
545:—
482:)
419:—
407:)
376:)
357:)
331:,
327:,
284:—
262:)
251:.
235:)
207:)
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
881:(
857:)
849:(
811:)
803:(
740:)
732:(
708:)
706:c
702:t
700:(
661:)
653:(
615:)
607:(
574:—
564:)
556:(
523:)
515:(
478:(
438:)
430:(
403:(
372:(
353:(
303:)
295:(
258:(
231:(
203:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.