Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin sort algorithm

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 This paper has clearly not been peer reviewed by a reputable journal.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]