Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSort

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]

JSort

(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 some self-published Java code. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand sort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J sort. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable and in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Google scholar hits for this name appear to be mostly or entirely about other things. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 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! 07:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entry in one online database of dubious notability (Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures) is not sufficient; as written fails WP:NSOFT IMHO. Through if software experts want to argue that Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures is sufficient, do ping me and I'll review your arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or 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.