Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptographically secure random number generators

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Cryptographically secure random number generators
Delete. This is a weird rant and/or original research. I'm sure that there's an article in there some place, but it's not written as such. Mmmbeer 01:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant (see Hardware random number generator and Cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator). ManoaChild 01:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research abakharev 02:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR. (Pretty much anything with the word "I" in it is fair game for deletion, methinks).  Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pseudorandom or the other article noted with the almost identical name or something else appropriate. Just because the content is bad, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Its a legit topic. Roodog2k (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per combination UniReb 11:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator. There's no content worth merging; we cover this stuff at hardware random number generator (as per ManoaChild). &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delte this is in effect a personal esay -- a collection of personal views on what makes a good CSRNG. This is all covered in more detail and in more encyclopediac fashion at cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator. After deletion, create a preemtive redirect to that page, but theere is no reason to retain the current article in the page history. (If no consensus to delete, redir, do not simply keep)DES (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete' OR. Dottore So 00:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. This is not only a personal opinion but sufficiently indistinct that it cannot even be tested (to the extent such things can be tested) as it stands. Actually the redirect to the CSPRNG would be best for readers looking for CSRNG should definitely be told that no such thing as a CSRNG actually exists and that the concept the term supposedly refers to is a snark. An important bit of context for the non cryptiacs. ww 18:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.