Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xoroshiro128+


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Xorshift. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Xoroshiro128+

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication from reliable third party sources that this is notable Zim Zala Bim  talk 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen&times;  &#9742;  20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've used Google Scholar to find multiple sources covering the subject, including: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar searches reveal multiple notable sources, such as IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and a publication from KAIST, covering the subject in depth. These sources, including https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, and https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf, provide substantial coverage and analysis, establishing the notability of the subject. As these reliable third-party sources contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the topic, the article merits retention."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Sock strike
 * This feels a lot like an AI generated response. You've just summarised the comment above using the exact same sources that @Deltaspace42 provided. Why a set of quotation marks floating at the end of your comment too? GraziePrego (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to or merge with Sebastiano Vigna  Xorshift . I'm not very familiar with RNGs as a research topic, but this one does seem to be awfully niche. Of the 11 Google scholar hits, one is a primary source, one is a duplicate and another four are preprints or Github pages. --Tserton (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge with Xorshift or else just redirect there. Xoroshiro128+ is an algorithm in a class of PRNG Xorshift algorithms. The propposed target page is generic, describing both the issue, for the interested reader, and containing some detail on the algorithms. Xoroshiro gets a mention but this specific algorithm doesn't, except in saying it is equivalent to another. Whether it needs further mention is debatable, but a paragraph about this algorithm would fit on that page. In this paper, we see that this algorithm is in the class of xorshift PRNG algorithms and not distinct from it. Tserton's proposed redirect target is valid too, but I would suggest that any reader searching for this algorithm is less interested in the creator, and more interested in xorshift PRNGs, and that Xorshift is thus the better target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's a useful suggestion. Tserton (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.