Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provable fairness

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. Sandstein 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provable fairness[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)

It is unclear what the exact topic is here. Whether it is the concept of provable fairness / provably fair games, or a specific algorithm dubbed as "Provably Fair" sourced to a gambling site [1]. Either way, there does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources, especially for the later. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mental poker: a related subject. The term is occasionally used in academic literature on cryptographic algorithms, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this is a subject that can be expanded greatly, especially with the takeoff of provably-fair Bitcoin casinos, almost all of which have provably-fair systems. Though, I can understand the idea of merging it into Mental poker, and creating a redirect to that page. OnlyNano 18:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (with no prejudice to draftification / userfication if people want to keep working on it). The sources that seem to talk about this algorithm directly don't appear reliable, and the journal articles are off-topic and don't show notability. (As a side note, I'm skeptical here... mostly-good-enough RNG is a "solved" problem, and "do you trust a service not to lie" is an unsolvable problem.) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my thoughts mirror SnowFire's stance. Beyond that, it kinda reads like an essay aiming to convince people that online gaming is not a scam or something. Best case scenario should be draftifying, if someone truly wishes to work on this. (Which I'm skeptical of - even the article creator apparently just copy/pasted it from Simple Wikipedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be some coverage here: "Borca-Tasciuc, G. et al. (2022) ‘Provable Fairness for Neural Network Models using Formal Verification’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2212.08578.", "Kanhere, S. S. and Sethu, H. (2003) ‘Anchored opportunity queueing: a low-latency scheduler for fair arbitration among virtual channels’, Journal of parallel and distributed computing, 63(12), pp. 1288–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jpdc.2003.08.002.", "Salimi, B. et al. (2019) ‘Capuchin: Causal Database Repair for Algorithmic Fairness’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1902.08283.", "Gregori, E. et al. (2002) ‘Optimization-Based Congestion Control for Multicast Communications’, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Germany: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 423–442. doi: 10.1007/3-540-47906-6_34." . Regrads Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:09, 7 February 2024 (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.