Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propagation and Back-Propagation Diffusion through Neighborhoods 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propagation and Back-Propagation Diffusion through Neighborhoods Algorithm

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

This was prodded, with the originally rational "All sources were/are predatory in nature [1]. Very likely not notable, and if it is WP:TNT applies." The article was deprodded because someone did not know what "predatory meant", and said that since User talk:Renamed user qh37rbwki62h19772b reviewed this at AfC this shouldn't be prodded/deleted. And to that I say I don't care who reviewed it, it should never have been accepted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. not notable, fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tend to think this whole area of biologically-inspired general-purpose heuristics is a cruft magnet, but there are definitely notable subtopics within it. This doesn't appear to be one of them. Google scholar finds only one uncited paper with the title phrase "Propagation and Back-Propagation Diffusion through Neighborhoods". That's not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, which can only be demonstrated through significant coverage in secondary sources. Whether the publisher of the primary-source paper is 'predatory' or not isn't really relevant. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:F98A:ED54:C4EB:9774 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't rise to the standard of being a notable technique in the field of bio-inspired optimization methods. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2018 (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.