Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalin sort

Stalin sort

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability for this algorithm. Github, blogs, personal webpages, ... but no indepth reliable sources about it. No good book sources[1], one Google Scholar hit from this year[2] of very unclear importance, from the English language department somehow? Fram (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Fram (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The algorithm is intended to be a humours, ineffective sorting algorithm. It is not intented to be a sorting algorithm for real-life applications. Considering other humourous algorithms such as Slowsort, these do not have large bases of academic literature. This algorithm is mentioned and known by common people whilst not having a large academic influence in the same way. The page should remain as it is a known algorithm that people talk about. It also has links to other problems in Computer Science such as the longest increasing sequence. The page should remain to improve completeness of humourous sorting algorithms. Ajmullen (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is neither a sorting algorithm as the article claims (it does not produce a sorted list of all of its input) nor a longest increasing subsequence algorithm as the article also contradictorily claims (the subsequence it produces need not be longest). It appears to be original research. Its only sources are unreliable web pages. Google Scholar did not turn up anything better. It fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The “sources” are a silly GitHub page and what appears to be someone’s English homework (not actually an academic paper). It’s also flat out incorrect (it doesn’t find the longest increasing subsequence of 99,1,2,3 for example) ButtzCarlton (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes, an academic satire or a deliberately un-serious proposal can become noteworthy. (A few esoteric programming languages reach this mark, for example.) Going by the available sources, however, this is not one of those cases. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]