Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of hardware random number generators

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 was delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of hardware random number generators[edit]

[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)

Another indiscriminate linkfarm of software that is unlikely to be notable individually. It doesn't appear that any content here individually has an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I made this article many years ago, I was under the impression that hardware random number generators were much more useful than they actually are. Sbierwagen (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article WP:G7 tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined this. G7 only applies if the article has no significant contributions from other people, and although Sbierwagen started it plenty of other people have contributed. Hut 8.5 16:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the past, I have defended articles from the accusation of violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY because, even though they listed commercial products, they provided more and different information than a manufacturer's catalog. (Example.) This, however, falls on the wrong side of that line. XOR'easter (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It isn't clear to me that any editors have so far tried to provide enough sourcing for the article to establish WP:GNG. If they do so, they may succeed and the article should then unquestionably be kept. (I hope so, because this is a useful article.) Certainly, it is hard to provide citations for a deleted article! If it such an attempt has definitely been tried, and failed, however, then deletion is probably fair. Zazpot (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that’s kinda what a 7 day deletion discussion is for. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of hardware random number generators is indisputably notable. The question here is whether this specific table is in accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In my judgment, it isn't. I would be fine with a page that was a list of historically significant hardware RNGs, if there were so many that such a list outgrew the hardware RNG article itself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a comparison site for shoppers, and that's all this article will ever be. The topic of comparison is not in and of itself notable, and the article does not do anything beyond aggregate information. The topic is already covered in hardware random number generator. I would suggest grabbing the links used as sources and pasting it into the talk page of hardware random number generator to be used to make a limited comparison of certain elements of the more notable generators within that article, if desired. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. --Leflyman^Talk 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hmm, I came here with the gut feeling it's WP:USEFUL (one to avoid), and it is linked from outside WP. The NOT directory argument seems convincing. As a spinout or table too big for the article it's good, but maybe the issue is that the items aren't notable. (ps the nom incorrectly states software, this is hardware) Widefox; talk 22:00, 16 August 2018 (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.