409:: This article claims to be about an algorithm, but it does not describe an algorithm, it rambles through supposed characteristics of something else (pollination??), and implies, I suppose, that these characteristics somehow define an algorithm. This is largely pseudoscientific babble. If this particular researcher is really notable, there should be an article about him/her, noting the production of an open-ended list of algorithms with flowery (ha!) names. I defy anyone to claim that the bulk of this article is a contribution to human knowledge, which WP claims to be. (And is, overall, the largest single collection of knowledge ever created by humanity, while including the largest collection of total garbage ever...)
434:. In order for a concept to be notable, we cannot be relying on just the original author's publications, but instead need some secondary coverage such as reviews citing the original work (in this case a book chapter). Right now the article seems to be written as if it was someone trying to justify a new idea.
447:
to see if they are even noteworthy there, and then spin them off as content forks if they can actually build up enough content there. I honestly don't see that happening though as that section likely should be reduced to simply say a number of algorithms have been modeled after biological systems
302:. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —
168:
228:
223:
439:
There are a number of papers citing this method, but like many of the other algorithm articles, we need secondary sources that explain the method and what it's used for rather than relying on
162:
258:
279:
213:
121:
389:
233:
94:
89:
208:
203:
98:
128:
81:
183:
150:
17:
85:
364:
457:
418:
398:
380:
335:
311:
291:
270:
144:
63:
344:
320:
140:
264:
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —
77:
69:
476:
40:
287:
190:
448:
while only noting examples cited by strong secondary sources rather than a non-independent source for each method.
250:
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a
199:
This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):
307:
414:
431:
453:
283:
156:
472:
394:
331:
36:
251:
440:
370:
303:
176:
444:
427:
410:
51:
449:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
471:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
356:
266:
443:
sources. I would generally want to see these algorithm articles potentially merged to
240:
57:
115:
247:
Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
229:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Van
Flandern–Yang hypothesis
219:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Flower pollination algorithm
465:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
347:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
323:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
224:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Fowler–Yang equations
259:
Category:Suspected
Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of Metafun
214:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm
111:
107:
103:
175:
234:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Eagle strategy
353:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
329:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
209:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cuckoo search
204:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bat algorithm
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
479:). No further edits should be made to this page.
280:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions
8:
390:list of Science-related deletion discussions
388:Note: This debate has been included in the
278:Note: This debate has been included in the
387:
277:
243:. All suffer from the following problems:
239:These article all detail research done by
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
257:Articles have been created by
1:
445:Swarm intelligence#Algorithms
428:Swarm intelligence#Algorithms
261:, why likely is Yang himself.
52:Swarm intelligence#Algorithms
78:Flower pollination algorithm
70:Flower pollination algorithm
496:
64:19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
458:05:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
419:03:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
399:02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
381:13:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
336:11:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
312:17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
292:14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
271:14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
468:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
401:
383:
376:
338:
294:
284:Shawn in Montreal
487:
470:
397:
378:
377:
373:
367:
362:
359:
352:
350:
348:
334:
328:
326:
324:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
60:
34:
495:
494:
490:
489:
488:
486:
485:
484:
483:
477:deletion review
466:
393:
384:
371:
365:
361:
357:
355:
343:
341:
339:
330:
319:
317:
252:citation circle
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
493:
491:
482:
481:
461:
460:
436:
435:
421:
403:
402:
351:
340:
327:
316:
315:
314:
304:David Eppstein
296:
295:
274:
273:
262:
255:
248:
237:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
206:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
492:
480:
478:
474:
469:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
446:
442:
438:
437:
433:
432:WP:NOTJOURNAL
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
411:Imaginatorium
408:
405:
404:
400:
396:
395:North America
391:
386:
385:
382:
379:
374:
368:
360:
349:
346:
337:
333:
332:North America
325:
322:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
272:
269:
268:
263:
260:
256:
253:
249:
246:
245:
244:
242:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
467:
464:
450:Kingofaces43
423:
407:Delete/Merge
406:
354:
342:
318:
299:
265:
241:Xin-She Yang
238:
218:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:
49:
47:
31:
28:
430:mainly per
163:free images
441:WP:PRIMARY
473:talk page
358:Anarchyte
50:merge to
37:talk page
475:or in a
345:Relisted
321:Relisted
122:View log
39:or in a
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
59:MBisanz
141:Google
99:delete
424:Merge
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
454:talk
415:talk
372:talk
366:work
308:talk
300:Keep
288:talk
267:Ruud
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
426:to
191:TWL
120:– (
55:.
456:)
417:)
392:.
369:|
310:)
290:)
282:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
452:(
413:(
375:)
363:(
306:(
286:(
254:.
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.