The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (db author). Tawker 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is counting sort. The algorithm is poorly described here, and the author confessed to have invented the specific form and name of the algorithm described in this article on the talk page (a Google search - which is rather reliable in the area of computer algorithms - confirms that only Wikipedia talks about it under this name). Even if there were something new here, it definitely qualifies as original research. Also, er, for some bizarre reason the article text is an image. Deco 09:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
(The following discussion with DECO is being moved from my talk page to here.) ... IMHO ( Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi Pce3. Just to emphasize that I harbour you no ill will, I've scanned a description of Counting Sort from the seminal textbook Introduction to Algorithms. They don't cite a particular researcher who came up with it, but the book was first published in 1990 and mostly describes classical results from the 1970s. I think if you take a little time to read it you'll realize that what it describes is very much the same idea that you describe. Bucket sort and pigeonhole sort are variations on these ideas. If you'd like to incorporate some of your ideas or implementations into the counting sort article, that would be great. Please keep editing, and keep thinking about algorithms too! Deco 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
(End of discussion move.)
Why would anyone want to delete an article about the only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware? ... IMHO ( Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Also everyone please comment on whether you think this method qualifies as original research or whether it qualifies as a counting sort. Thanks. ... IMHO ( Talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Already Deleted B.Wind 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (db author). Tawker 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is counting sort. The algorithm is poorly described here, and the author confessed to have invented the specific form and name of the algorithm described in this article on the talk page (a Google search - which is rather reliable in the area of computer algorithms - confirms that only Wikipedia talks about it under this name). Even if there were something new here, it definitely qualifies as original research. Also, er, for some bizarre reason the article text is an image. Deco 09:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
(The following discussion with DECO is being moved from my talk page to here.) ... IMHO ( Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi Pce3. Just to emphasize that I harbour you no ill will, I've scanned a description of Counting Sort from the seminal textbook Introduction to Algorithms. They don't cite a particular researcher who came up with it, but the book was first published in 1990 and mostly describes classical results from the 1970s. I think if you take a little time to read it you'll realize that what it describes is very much the same idea that you describe. Bucket sort and pigeonhole sort are variations on these ideas. If you'd like to incorporate some of your ideas or implementations into the counting sort article, that would be great. Please keep editing, and keep thinking about algorithms too! Deco 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
(End of discussion move.)
Why would anyone want to delete an article about the only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware? ... IMHO ( Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Also everyone please comment on whether you think this method qualifies as original research or whether it qualifies as a counting sort. Thanks. ... IMHO ( Talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Already Deleted B.Wind 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply