Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization
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
— User:Bluerasberry, 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)