Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudorandom index 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 . ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorandom index generator

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pseudorandom index generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article seems to be created with purpose of promotion of “Miller Shuffle Algorithm” presented in the only source cited. A web search suggests there is no systematic use of the term “Pseudorandom index generator” outside of that source and connected pages (WP:NOR). Moreover, the username of the article's author coincides with the username of the corresponding github page [1] (WP:SELFPROMOTE). Nikita Medved (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the general concept nor the specific algorithm are referenced to a reliable source, and WP is not the appropriate forum for original research. Hqb (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aintabli (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A section on General Concept including a specific algorithm instance has been added.(User: RondeSC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RondeSC (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BEFORE only returns a handful of entries in known predatory journals such as WASET as well as one self-published book. The lone source (Hackaday) used in the Wikipedia article does not even mention the concept of a PRIG, and even if this subject did pass muster for notability (it does not), I would be wholly in favor of WP:TNT, as literally the entire article constitutes original research. Is there a vote for 'Move to Wikibooks'? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 20 April 2023 (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.