Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pbit

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pbit

It's essential nomination - the problem is there is no realiable source for notability and correctness of this algorithm. The main idea of the Pbit is to use radix sort on lists - nothing new. There is no academic paper about this algorithm. All found by google were written by the author of the algorithm. Due to no academic review it should be considered as OR. Arxiv allow nearly everybody to publish his paper - so the link in article is not realiable. Author of algorithm is unknown to scientists databases. Mathel (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the claims made in the linked paper are interesting, the total lack of publication or investigation of this algorithm does make me think it is original research. To include it Wikipedia editors would be in the uncomfortable position of trying to evaluate the claims in the paper, which is certainly not what we do. I searched web of science, google, and the author's home page to try and find further research on this, but found nothing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the merits of the algorithm, this has only a self-published source (arxiv papers are reviewed for being on topic but not for content) that Google scholar reports no citations for. Until it achieves some independent scientific impact, we should not report it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless new information comes up I must agree with the previous comments. I looked at the preprint, and it doesn't inspire much confidence. (Section 3 begins: "The whole idea of Pbit is very interesting." The idea being to combine bucket sort, radix sort and merge sort into one algorithm.) This may be due to the author's incomplete command of English, though. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of verification/notability. The single source provided is problematic as described by previous comments. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:52, 5 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.