Deletion of Wizard sort

Comment: as |original research with no |reliable source.  It's essentially  counting sort while the extension to reals is essentially bucket sort
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: Actually, it's a |self-published source, which isn't permitted, and it's also a |primary source, which is frowned upon. My understanding of  is that Wikipedia is not the place to put up something that can't be found in |reliable, third-party sources. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:PSTS||WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: blatant |original research; the article states it's by "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" and provides a link. The source code was produced by this person, AKA "Dj Wizard". The article was written by {{user|Djwizard}}. But just in case this is honest, I googled for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Yevgeniy+Dukhovny%22+%22wizard+sort%22&btnG=Search "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" "wizard sort", http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Yevgeniy+Dukhovny%22+wizardsort&btnG=Search "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" wizardsort, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Jim+Dukhovny%22+%22wizard+sort%22&btnG=Search "Jim Dukhovny" "wizard sort" and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Dj+Wizard%22+%22wizard+sort%22&btnG=Search "Dj Wizard" "wizard sort". The first two gave this article, the next zero hits, and the last nothing related to this algorithm. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Does not appear to be |notable at this time. If this algorithm is the best thing since sliced bread, get it published in the ''Communications of the ACM'' or a similar journal, and then it may become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)