Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle strategy

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle strategy[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm etc. —Ruud 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the references on the article, all but one are coauthored by Xin-She Yang, who appears to have spawned a number of blocked sockpuppet accounts in order to promote his work here. This one doesn't appear to have garnered significant attention from non-affiliated sources. If deleted, a very selective merge to the bio article seems in order, alongside all of his other nature-inspired models listed there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --a concept of minor renown w/o independent sourcing. Not notable on its own. Delete & redirect to Xin-She Yang may also be an option. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 8 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.