Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCG (random number generator)

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 with no consensus to merge. If someone wants to use parts of this article to merge them somewhere else, feel free to request userfication. So Why 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PCG (random number generator)[edit]

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

NN fails GNG. (It is WP:INTERESTING so we do have userification / draft.) Widefox; talk 10:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Linear congruential generator leaving a redirect. The single reference is a (very interesting) paper that was submitted for publication but never published. I believe the paper could well have been published had it been cut down to a simple description of PCG. It's much too long for a journal article but it is a wonderful introduction to machine generation of random numbers. There are no other published sources that talk about it. However it has been picked up in the programming discussion groups. The author has done a video explaining it. It's been implemented in a number of languages and serves as the basis for a new hashing algorithm. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma, the self published article isn't a proper WP:RS so maybe an external link or further reading, but how can we merge with zero published RS, zero secondary sources? WP:INTERESTING covers it. Widefox; talk 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites no third-party sources, see WP:RS, WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not in the business of evaluating what should have been published in academic journals if only X happened. That is entirely based off a primary source, and no matter how credible or interesting that source is, it is not enough for Wikipedia. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:53, 19 May 2017 (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.