Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin sort algorithm

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twin sort algorithm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not at all clear why this is notable It seems to be intended only to promote the recent research of Devireddy, with no indication why anyone else should care Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the only source that's not just standard references for background material is a journal on Beall's list, you know it's worse than merely non-notable research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if anyone can show that this work receives attention by professionals in the field, however as a programmer I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. If I understood the paper correctly, this algorithm is already known as Odd–even sort. I also believe there is a severe error in the paper. An algorithm with (n-1)*(n/2) performance is not O(NlogN), it is O(N^2). Our article on Big O notation explains that. For large list sizes any O(N^2) algorithm will have catastrophically slow runtime on any standard computer. On massively parallel hardware it can have a runtime of N, but this is already standard knowledge in the field of parallel-sorting algorithms. Alsee (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our Wikipedia:no original research policy is designed to prohibit things that have not yet escaped their inventors/creators and become acknowledged by the rest of the world as a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. In conjunction with our requirement for Wikipedia:reliable sources, this is intended to prevent us accepting things merely upon the say-so of people with no evidence of peer review and fact checking by people with established known reputations for accuracy.
Alsee does not provide a rationale for deletion, but shows the rationale for these policies. This paper has clearly not been peer reviewed by a reputable journal. Any half-way decent peer review would have caught and rejected a claim to have just invented the odd-even sort in 2014. Moreover, this is one of the journals that the world has come to consider to have a bad reputation.
So this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because the only source is one person (I have my doubts about the claimed co-authors.) with no established reputation for accuracy publishing via a route where no peer review took place, an unreliable source; and no-one else acknowledging this by dint of publishing more themselves, a lack of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
(See Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Oregon State University/Wikipedia - Universally Shared, Edited by Whom (Spring) for why I have laid this out in detail. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable5 and User:Uncle G/On sources and content.)
Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alsee. Non-notable and apparently poor work academically to boot. SpinningSpark 23:22, 4 June 2019 (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.