Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoqueue


 * 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   speedy delete. Tone 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoqueue

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is entirely made-up, jargon-laden, nonsense. It has been tagged as vandalism for 22 hours and then the speedy tag was removed by an IP with no explanation. Although the individual words look convincing, nothing in the article makes any real sense. There are no references, and the bibliography section lists items which appear not to exist. I42 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Some references to the term "pseudoqueue" can be found in computer-programming contexts, but they're nothing to do with this nonsense -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unambiguous hoax. Yes, the expression "pseudo queue" exists, and sometimes it is to be found as one word, but I have never come across this meaning of it, after over 40 years of experience of computer algorithmics. Also Google searches fail to produce anything of the sort. The text is complete nonsense: although it looks superficially as though it means something, in fact it doesn't. The article refers to "Rudich, Giroux, Glynn '97", which I cannot trace anywhere. Both the articles listed in the "bibliography" Google only to this Wikipedia article. And so it goes on and on ... in such a short article it is amazing how much evidence I can find that the whole thing is nonsense. I actually think it should be a speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as an unambiguous hoax. Perhaps recreate as a redirect to Queue (data structure)? &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unverifiable. See, , , , . — Rankiri (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Needless to add, the included implementation code is nonsensical. — Rankiri (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. I suspect a pointy hoax aimed at the kind of patent nonsense technobabble often encountered in other articles.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (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.