Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Sorting Algorithms Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abstract_Sorting_Algorithms

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Sorting Algorithms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding a lot of references for this subject. "abstract sorting algorithm" comes up with 26 "unique" results. I've already deleted what appears to be some kind of computer-programmer in-jokes, and what's left is basically a definition of sorting algorithm with some funny stuff at the end. ... discospinster _talk 01:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A10 - all non-trivial content is covered by Sorting algorithm. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – devoid of meaningful content and not a plausible search term.  --Lambiam 09:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 09:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bogosort covers similar ground more clearly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Close to a G1 speedy deletion as an article "consisting entirely of incoherent text". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.