Deletion of Intelligent Water Drops algorithm

Comment: for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish . If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet  and establish . Why demand a higher standard in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Swarm intelligence. It seems like there is a bit of secondary citation/usage of the algorithm, but that doesn't seem to indicate standalone notability because the publications are only mentioning the algorithm rather than giving in-depth secondary coverage. For a potential merge, someone would need to look over the sources to find what they consider a decent secondary source summarizing the method such as from the lede, tq|This algorithm contains a few essential elements of natural water drops and actions and reactions that occur between river's bed and the water drops that flow within. That itself may not be notable or need to be rewritten over at swarm intelligence too though. All the rest wouldn't be worth merging much less a standalone article per  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL||WP:NOTJOURNAL)