Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State transition 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State transition algorithm

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

Based on work by single group of authors (WP:GNG). —Ruud 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

We have added the secondary or tertiary sources to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael X Zhou (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Michael X Zhou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I presume you are referring to this edit, in which case, no you didn't. You are a coauthor on most of those sources, though you conveniently omitted your name from the bibliographic details here. Some of the remaining articles which don't bear your name appear in journals of dubious quality (TELKOMNIKA is pay-to-publish, and Inderscience journals are discommended by Beall). —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is interesting for people in this filed to understand state transition algorithm(STA). It describes STA in a more clear way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.20.106.16 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — 58.20.106.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Through this article, we have a better understanding of state transition algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.130.110.183 (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — 133.130.110.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To find the global optimal solution is an intractable problem nowadays, the STA method makes a contribution to this unsolved problem in global optimization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.XIE (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — J.R.XIE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The same as the classic approaches like EA and PSO, STA is also an stochastic algorithm for solving global optimization problem. However, STA has a much clearer mathematic explanation for the included operators if compared with EA and PSO. In this article, the operators in STA seem to be designed for dealing with challenges in global optimization such as the cheating of a local optimal and the slow convolution speed. The result in the references indicate that the four operators yield a pleased performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.91.81 (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — 203.10.91.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article gives a clear description and better understanding of the state transition algorithm and is very helpful for those researchers in the field of the global optimization.--Mark6666666 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Mark6666666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are primary or else are of questionable scholarly merit. See my comment above in response to User:Michael X Zhou. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to understand what the sources in the article are primary or else are of questionable scholarly merit means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.76.28.42 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All this is explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychonaut should give more suggestions to improve the article but not suggest to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.76.28.42 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — 218.76.28.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - The article could be improved by the addition of multiple sources which are independent of the algorithm's authors, which are published in venues with a reputation for adequate peer review, and which discuss the algorithm in depth as opposed to citing it in passing. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious socking aside, this is pretty much identical to that string of circularly-cited "nature-inspired algorithms" articles. Every source is by the same authors with the order of the names changed, and the article is maintained by a user with a clear COI. There's no reason to believe this algorithm describes anything more than a random-walk iterative optimization, because it makes up its own language and isn't corroborated by any outside source. Jergling (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also new: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper-Spherical Search Algorithm. —Ruud 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks notability. Most references are 2016, i.e. not notable. The oldest references has mostly self-citations. Also COI problem + orphan: there is no "story line" in Wikipedia that would eventually direct someone here. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:16, 2 August 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.