Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupid sort
An anonymous user, User:81.197.39.124, decided to change the entire content of this article into a redirect to an unrelated article, on the theory that the topic discussed here is non-notable and the name is better known as a synonym for the other article (see Talk:Stupid sort). This seems like a deletion to me, and in the interest of following proper process I am nominating it on their behalf. I am not voting Keep or Delete. Deco 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete content and replace with redirect to bogosort. Do a google search for "stupid sort".  You will find: (1) pages from the jargon file, which say "see bogosort" (an unrelated algorithm); (2) wikipedia mirrors; (3) phrases like "it's stupid sort of thing"; (4) unrelated algorithms.  The article points to no reference to the literature talking about "stupid sort" as this algorithm; the original poster made it up.  Pfalstad 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to bogosort, unless it can be sourced. As per Pfalstad: it's unsourced, no source can be found with the Google test (which is very odd for a sorting algorithm, as all computer science subjects can be easily found on the web, for obvious reasons), and it's probably original research. --cesarb 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete then redirect as or regular Redirect. Here's the anon's claim, which sounds plausible to me. This Stupid Sort Article started by Panu Kristian Poiksalo is bogus. It's an algorithm that Panu came up with when attending the course of Data structures and algorithms at Tampere University of Technology. There is no such algorithm mentioned in the literature and this article should probably be deleted and only mention Bogosort as a synonym which seems more widely accepted.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:40Z 
 * Redirect per Cesarb. Stifle 17:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Cesarb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is about a stupid variant of gnome sort, which is a stupid variant of insert sort. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this name actually used; at best it is an informal term, perhaps from some programming lecture (as stated above). I concur with the other editors: redirect to bogosort; there doesn't seem to be much useful material to merge to gnome sort. - Mike Rosoft 01:50, 17 January 2006 (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.