Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J sort


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

J sort

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable sorting algorithm. Occurs in the DADS, but that's a tertiary source, not a secondary one, and only contains a dictionary definition; the DADS itself refers to a USENET posting. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete In my defence, at the time I created this article Notability read "There is no Wikipedia policy on notability ... lack of 'notability' is not a criterion for deletion." —Ruud 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Related: Articles for deletion/Strand sort, Articles for deletion/JSort. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only hit I found on Google scholar was this, a non-in-depth mention in a long list of sorting articles in a dodgy-looking journal. That's not good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to pass WP:NSOFT.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.