Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat algorithm Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bat_algorithm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bat algorithm

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These algorithms form a large part of the currently growing research in metaheuristic techniques. It is obvious that the number of self-citations are high but instead of deletion, inspiration should be taken from the Grey wolf optimizer page and addition of applications of the algorithm under question should be encouraged. Majority of the work lies in applications using these algorithms.--Capn Swing (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Capn Swing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with David Epstein. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.