Deletion of Sleep sort

Comment: This is a valid sorting algorithm worthy of a proper analysis as given here.  I posit that analysis of this algorithm is not so difficult as to constitute original research per .  We may decide in time that this article should be kept or deleted, but I think it's much to early to make a reasoned call.  It really depends on if this algorithm becomes established as an example of how sorting may be done.  Check back in 5 years
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:CALC)

Comment: Classic example of |original research. The claim "effectively making the algorithm linear time" is difficult to believe (sorting, in the general case, cannot be done faster than loglinear time) and, as explained on the talk page, wrong. This happens when technical articles are not based on peer-reviewed sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: No evidence of notability. It seems to have attracted a bunch of  too. Remove as internet cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Fascinating idea, but without coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, it's impossible to establish |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day|Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The criterion for having an article on Wikipedia is not whether the topic is amusing, or has other redeeming merits, but whether it is |notable, as evidenced by non-trivial coverage in independent |reliable sources. In this case the sources have not been subject to any editorial control and thus are not reliable (in the Wikipedia sense); the main one is most certainly not independent of the topic: it is a posting by the inventor on a bulletin board. "ther stuff exists|Other stuff exists" is not an argument for keeping this. The statement in the article that this is a "sorting algorithm" is R|OR – whether the described process will produce a properly sorted sequence depends on unspecified characteristics of the computational platform, in particular the hardware. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:OR||WP:notable||WP:reliable sources)

Comment: cute, but not supported by eliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: as  or entirely based on unreliable sources, such as 4chan, take your pick
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)