Deletion of Firefly algorithm

Comment: Verifying almost 60 references is a daunting task for anyone.  Many of these references seem to be conference proceedings.  Although these are sometimes more "significant" in CS than perhaps in other areas of science, typically conference proceedings are not secondary sources, as required by .  Focusing on more traditional print media, some of the remaining references appear to be from open access publishers.  For example, the "Journal of Applied Mathematics", "Int. J. Computer Science Issues".  Several of the other journals seem otherwise dodgy.  But there is a solid core here of high-quality journals, for example the Proceedings of the Royal Society.  I would really like to see the references pruned to some more manageable collection of high-quality sources.  I do not think specific implementation details belong here.  Entire sections are sourced only to conference proceedings, and should be removed.  Also, given the amount of skepticism that these metaheuristics have generated, I find the tone of the article inconsistent with , and especially .  Possibly  is relevant.  However, AfD is not cleanup.  Although what we have right now is a pretty terrible article, it does not rise to the level of TNT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:WEIGHT||WP:FRINGE)