Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand sort Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strand_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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strand sort

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

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. The only other potential source I could find is an arXiv pre-print that refers to this very article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J sort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSort. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one has more Google scholar hits that are actually relevant than JSort and J sort, but I still didn't find any in-depth coverage in high-quality sources. I don't think it passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG (although I agree with David Eppstein that it is more relevant than the two similar articles up for deletion), and does not appear to pass WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 13 November 2015 (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.