Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacosort

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tacosort

Non-notable original research from unreliable source Maratanos (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's mildly interesting as an attempt at a pessimal algorithm, but without sources we can't keep it, and there don't seem to be sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, not that it affects my deletion rationale, but the algorithm description is incomplete, and the implementation appears to be buggy. Exactly how does the algorithm check whether the current array has the same elements as the input array? Why is there no attempt to make this part slow? And in the implementation, where is "tree" declared? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note that this criticism has been fixed; the addition of the declaration of "tree" (renamed now to "list") and several comments clarify that it keeps a list of items that are in the original array but aren't in the working copy, and adds/removes items from it whenever necessary; it can only return if the list is zero-length. The fact that the list is kept unsorted and must be searched in its entirity at each iteration is a major contributor to the complexity of the algorithm, I suspect. JulesH (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very interesting to see how to make a algorithm even less efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.205.24 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 128.211.205.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any sources that establish any kind of notability for this. Rnb (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Very amusing algorithm, and I would be unsurprised to find discussion of it turning up in various places, but I don't see any yet, so at present this is blatant OR. JulesH (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many articles in Wikipedia that already reference it. Besides, its commonlyused as an example of an extremely inefficient algorithm. --Fixman^{Praise me} 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The many articles that reference it are from the {{Sorting}} template; if this article is removed, it should also be removed from that template, so your first argument is moot. As for the "its commonly used" argument: please supply reliable sources documenting this claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete It's actually a cool idea, though I strongly suspect the runtime analysis is flawed. But no matter how cool, wikipedia isn't the place to publish this. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source quoted in the article is from the same person as the main (only) contributor to this page. So this is Original Reseach--Yitscar (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2009 (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.