Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pbit sort

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 of the debate was delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be original research. Google can't find any references except the same paper linked in this article. P3d0 23:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't even find a definition of "pbit" that fits the context. - Dalbury (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. The paper doesn't look like something that has gotten through peer review, it looks more like the first version which you go over once more before submitting it for consideration. My first hunch is that someone has rediscovered radix sort, but I haven't checked the algorithm well enough to be sure that I'm not 100% off the mark. - Andre Engels 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It seems to be supported by a small amount of academic research, but it is not a widely known term. It was added by an anonymous editor, so that may be the author of the paper, making it OR, but we don't know. --Rogerd 15:13, 12 November 2005 (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.