Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum sort2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, so Keep. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum sort

Previous VfD gave delete as a result, but the person who closed it kept. --W(t) 14:02, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  • No, I think SimonP was right on this one. There is a bunch of delete votes for it being patent nonsense, then someone adds a reference (The Jargon File, thanks to Josh Lee), then there are only keep votes. Verifiable nonsense isn't nonsense. Keep. Radiant_>|< 14:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an in-joke among computer science people. There are tens of thousands of non-notable injokes amongst computer science people. That does not make them all notable. --W(t) 14:26, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • I think SimonP was taking out this policy from the top section of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If in doubt... don't delete!" — EatMyShortz 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's still nonsense. It's a joke from the Jargon file and has no place here. If an anon had created this hoax article, it would have been considered outright (stealth) vandalism, I think. Lupo 14:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This might want tying into Quantum immortality and Quantum suicide. Morwen - Talk 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in this quantum universe. Retain in all the others. ;-) — RJH 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Given
  • I suggest that if the consensus is not to keep this text, a redirect be made to quantum computing. I'm still looking for this type of quantum sort. Vote pending. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • I fail to see any reason why the term must redirect to a page where it is not explained, unless you copy the current content there, and here again I fail to see why. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The current content should not be merged to quantum computing, which is why I explicitly used the qualification of if the consensus is not to keep the current content. There is literature on sorting in quantum computing, as demonstrated, which is referenced from the "Further reading" section of quantum computing. Uncle G 00:29, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
    • BTW, in some Parallel World this article is already in wikipedia, so it is no harm to delete it in Our World. Surely the one who can use this algorithm can also find its description Over There. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure that quantum computing will allow novel sorting algorithms, but this is just a joke. --Carnildo 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The algorithm is either useless or wrong. Not to say that the author badly misunderstood the jargon file idea (which has it own sibtle fallacy). In any case the topic is nonnotable. Faulty original research in its current form. google links lead mostly to irrelevant pages, most unexpected and hence funny one IMO being this one. mikka (t) 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. I went to some scientific talks on quantum computing and I can say that this is nonsense. An algorithm cannot take advantage of the multiple-universe theory, since we do not know of an experimentally way to test the multiple-universe hypothesis. Jitse Niesen 00:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The contents of the article might be nonsense (or vastly over-simplified) but quantum sorting is a very important field of research. Pburka 02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make sense. If the contents are nonsense, then what's the point of keeping the article? --Carnildo 03:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess I support having an article on Quantum Sort, but not necessarily this article. Changing my vote to weak delete. Pburka 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Standard Wikipedia policy is not to delete a page because it's content is unworthy. If you don't like what's inside an article, fix it up. Only vote delete if you don't think there should be an article on this at all. — EatMyShortz 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - First can I say I can't believe the fuss Weyes has kicked up over this, first taking it upon (him)self to blank the page and set it to redirect, and then putting up a new VfD. Anyway I'll just quote him: "It's an in-joke among computer science people." So, it should be changed to state that it's a joke among computer science people and left as an example of a CS joke. (Hell, I'll do it now). There are plenty of pages on jokes. "You have two cows", "how to keep a genius busy for hours" and "shit happens" are just a few examples of internet jokes that have their own wikipedia articles. Some, such as "keep a genius" contain some analysis of it. Hence we should correct this article but definitely keep it. Also, redirecting implies that the content of the article is discussed on the target page. Since it isn't, this page should keep it's own content. "That does not make them all notable." (- Weyes) - have you noticed how many articles there are on Wikipedia? I don't think a topic needs worldwide notability to be acceptable. — EatMyShortz 07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's already been voted on and kept. Useful to some.ToriaURU 10:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, the result of the vote was delete. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
    • Nope, the result of the vote, actually, was keep. This was decided by an administrator. I think you have to read your deletion policy again - in particular this page: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. It explains: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy)." Thus the outcome was not decided by a majority, but, as SimonP, the admin who ruled "keep" pointed out, by an external verification of an article which was up for deletion for unverifiability. The only violation of deletion policy was the changing of the article into a redirect, after the vote was closed. — EatMyShortz 14:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS. I wonder if there is actually some Double jeopardy precedent for articles?)
  • Comment. What is your opinion on the following compromise: The current article is replaced by a stub like
"Quantum sorting algorithms are sorting algorithms that run on a quantum computer. Quantum sorting algorithms are usually not faster than classical algorithms, except perhaps by a constant factor (Høyer, Neerbek and Shi). However, a speed-up can be achieved in space-bounded situations (Klauck)." + references as given by Uncle G.
I think this should be merged into quantum computer, but if people want a separate article on quantum sorting, that is acceptable to me. Jitse Niesen 12:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. I'm all for an article on quantum sorting, my problem was just that the article in question wasn't it. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve.  Grue  19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article about a joke. Gazpacho 02:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Quantum algorithm or Quantum computer as a section, mentioning both the possible sort and the joke sort (and jargon ref). —Josh Lee 03:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While it may be a joke in the computer science field, there are actually people working on similar and equally odd ideas. Might be better combined with Quantum computer than its own entry. --Jareth 04:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Pjacobi 12:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite into a real article. I disagree with the merge people because there is too much stuff in the quantum computing field to put it all into Quantum computer; e.g. just to mention then stuff I'm familiar with, there's a lot of work being done on crypto applications of quantum computing (both cryptanalysis and cryptography), and there's also quantum computer networking (based on the quantum cryptography stuff - you need to be able to ship the quantum entities around if quantum cryptography is to work). To the extent sort algorithms for quantum computers are a real research topic (and the list of papers above seems to suggest it is) then it deserves an article. PS: The stuff about the "many worlds" joke would be OK to keep as a brief mention lower down in the article. Noel (talk) 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --CSTAR 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. - Sikon 10:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.