- 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. Clearly Original research DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- UnShuffle sort (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)
Algorithm of dubious notability. Mentioned superficially in the DADS (see References), but otherwise only in what appears to be a Letter to the Editor of Computer Language Magazine, where it was initially published. ACM counts no citations for the original. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am the author/inventor of Unshuffle and the author of the Wikipedia entry. I can provide a copy of the original Computer Language Volume 3, Number 11 November 1986 article galley pages, an image of the issues cover highlighting UnShuffle as the feature article, the Table of Contents page, and the article pages. However, as the originator of the algorithm my own provenance is irrefutable as I can provide working source code for the sort in multiple languages and for a working file sort utility using the UnShuffle sort as its basis for processing input to sorted output. The wikipedia article discusses the algorithm in detail and is an update of the original version of the algorithm presented in Computer Language which eliminates worst case behaviors described in the article. --Akagel (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The prior comment from User:Akagel is basically an admission that he is publishing his updated sort information in Wikipedia for the first time. Wikipedia is clear: No original research. If User:Akagel sees this message, I STRONGLY encourage him to submit his algorithm for publication in a reputable journal, preferably linked to a an academic programming or computing conference. I am a computer scientist and would take a keen interest in seeing an article published on any novel sort algorithm, but as a Wikipedian, I cannot support this article at this time without it being published, as a juried article, somewhere else first. (letters to the editor are not really a good reference, since they are not edited or juried). In the best case, after an article appears in a journal, another author publishes an article that references this algorithm and demonstrates that it is valuable and notable. THAT article would be a good basis for a Wikipedia page. Nickmalik (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2014 (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.
---
I am sorry about disobeying orders, but I'm not a regular wikipedia contributor (never posted anything), and the process of putting up a deletion review was not at all clear to me at a first glance, so here is my input on this:
I came here to find details on the unshuffle sort, because it is an excellent fast sorting algorithm, and because it is *one of the few that operates on lists*. The unshuffle algorithm therefore *definitely* belongs in a programmer's toolbox, even though it happens to be little known! To delete this article because "it violates wikipedias prohibition on original research" is not really helpful to the interested parts of the public. It is also a case of almost anal-retentive nitpicking, since the algorithm *does* have a couple of external sources to cite. They may not be PERFECT academic sources, but it's not a case of someone just publishing his untested ideas on wikipedia for vain self-promotion.
The algorithm is good enough to be mentioned here, so why not on wikipedia:
http://xlinux.nist.gov/dads//HTML/unshufflsort.html
It is true the article author put a few hints for optimization of the algorithm in his text that seem to not have been published elsewhere. If you wish to follow wikipedia's posting guidelines SLAVISHLY, then you can proudly delete that part of the article (but it is of course much much more helpful to programmers who seek to implement the algorithm to leave this *very helpful* information in). But to delete the entire article is downright SABOTAGE and makes wikipedia less useful! Come on, use your brains, and realize that the REASON for the wikipedia policy against original research is to make it a more useful information source by keeping spammers out!
Luckily, I was able to snatch a copy of the information I needed from the web archive. I post a link here to help others looking for the information:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130330125130/http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/UnShuffle_sort
P.S. If (when) an editor notices that I have scribbled on a page I shouldn't have, please be a sport and move this complaint to the proper place rather than just deleting it. As I said, I couldn't figure out how to do so myself.
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.209.148 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]