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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular evolutionary algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Seems to violate COI very strongly, also borders on Notability, Original Theories and seems to be a paper, not an encyclopedia article. Shashwat986 → talk 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research. Assertions and information in the article are completely unsourced; although a list of scientific papers is given at the bottom, there is no indication how those papers relate to the current article. There is clearly a lot to say about evolutionary algorithms (see Category:Evolutionary algorithms) and the subject might be worthy of an article, but this isn't it. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original papers. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable crossover between cellular automata and evolutionary algorithms. Notability is certainly there, if article quality isn't, then that's a cleanup issue, not deletion. Even if COI requires us to dump the existing references (which it doesn't), the topic has plenty more to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think. The article subject is a little above my pay grade, but let's see. It's true true that the article was written by E. Alba and all the sources are from E. Alba. This makes me leery. But there is also other material in the external links that seems to indicate that this a a real subject studied by various people in various organizations. And I gather that evolutionary algorithm is an important subject. And based on the external links this seems a valid subset of that. There are problems with the article, certainly. But per the above comment, these seem fixable -- at least in theory. An {{Expert-subject}} tag might be in order. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and edit. It seems very clear to me even from the title that most of the papers listed as references are about the subject. And it seems other people recognize the importance: the paper by Alba, "Parallelism and evolutionary algorithms" in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, [1] a prestigious journal like all IEEE journals, has [2] has 415 references to it in google Scholar!. Some editing is needed, but perhaps not all that much. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 12 November 2011 (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.