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 redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony search (Geem, Kim & Loganathan 2001). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This has been tagged as questionable notability since 2013 and still the only cited source that is actually about the topic, is the primary source by its main proponents, at least one of whom is a significant editor of the article. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are multiple sources "actually about the topic". Sure, the original "harmony search" paper is a primary source. But the four sources that critique the use of metaphor in optimization do explicitly reference harmony search. Finally, the paper "A critical analysis of the harmony search algorithm—How not to solve sudoku" is very relevant; it deals with harmony search directly and in-depth. However, given that most of the literature is critical of harmony search, the article as is puts put undue weight on the algorithm and under-emphasizes the controversy around it. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources may namecheck harmony search, but are, as the critique section establishes, about "nature-inspired metaheuristics in general". They, and probably also this article, belong at Metaheuristic § Nature-inspired metaheuristics. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of them are mentions, but others are more substantial. Section 3 of (Sörensen 2013) looks at harmony search in depth, and (Weyland 2015) treats Harmony search explicitly. This seems like significant coverage to me, but perhaps it is a borderline case.

  If we end up deleting, can I recommend a redirect target List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony_search_(Geem,_Kim_&_Loganathan_2001). BenKuykendall (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the above-mentioned List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony_search_(Geem,_Kim_&_Loganathan_2001). If the coverage of the topic consists of one primary originator and then five more-or-less passing mentions that all end up stating "this doesn't amount to much", then I don't believe we can justify an article. Topic indisputably exists though and has received some coverage, so treatment as a paragaph in a list seems suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redirect for above unless more neutral sources can be provided, in that case a WP:TNT may be applicable. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 2 December 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.