Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum sort

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, Josh Lee's argument never rebutted. - SimonP 02:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum sort

Looks like a WP:BJAODN candidate to me. Article creator has not provided references despite having been asked to, and I can't verify it. If I should be mistaken: sorry folks. Delete. Lupo 08:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable, original research. Rl 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Stupid (also, it's not quantum mechanics but the many worlds theory they're referring to). Redirecting to Quantum algorithm is a good idea though, as there are some interesting quantum computing sorting algorithms. --W(t) 09:13, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Delete. — Phil Welch 09:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were asking for references, I thought you were just saying, "hey that's funny". It's kind of a nerdish injoke, just like Pi day, Administratium etc. Some people swear by 'order of magnitude' as the only comparison of sort algorithms, and this (and quicksort) are counterexamples. Radiant_* 12:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, I'd say. One of those "great in theory, lousy in practice" procedures. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or move to a Humor Category): Qualified under "Patent nonsense (total gibberish)" as well as "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic", as well as reasons listed above. Clever, humorous, but not realistic.
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 09:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in this universe. The Jargon File is your reference. —Josh Lee 04:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the Jargon File cites it is sufficient to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia, although the article itself may need some cleanup. ArthurDenture 04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's non-nonsense and an interesting concept. It's something I'm glad I found, even if it's impractical. I think the article should be changed so that it states much more clearly its theoretical. —EatMyShortz 13:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.