Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mersenne Twister code

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

Wikipedia isn't a code repository. Should we have a bunch of articles entitled [[<Insert name of widely used software> code]]? No, we shouldn't. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a code repository, the code is not notable of itself, and the article isn't cited. If there was anything to say here that wasn't better said already in Mersenne Twister then I'd say redirect, but the title isn't a plausible redirect anyway, and if the code wasn't at the target (as it shouldn't be), the redirect would also be misleading. So delete is my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am the creator of the article "Mersenne Twister code". As stated in the edit summary at creation, the code was simply copied from the article Mersenne Twister; it was then deleted from that article. I wanted to remove the code from the article Mersenne Twister, because I believed that the code cluttered up that article. Copying the code into a new article seemed to be the easiest approach, but I have no opinion on whether Wikipedia should include the code. Ergo, I am neutral on the proposed deletion. FlagrantUsername (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a code repository. Code is another language than English, and this is the English Wikipedia not the Python or C or whatever encyclopedia. Not useful to people who wish to read this, and not the right way to share code with people who wish to use shared code. And to the extent that it is not a copyvio, it is also original research. Removing it from the Mersenne twister article was the right thing to do, but it should have been removed, not just moved elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-integrate into the main article. "Code is another language than English" is not a valid argument because mathematical equations are also another language than English, and could you imagine a Wikipedia where all math articles had to use only English? That being said, pseudocode is often more clear than mathematical formulae when it comes to computational algorithms, and the main MT article is sorely lacking a (pseudo)code example now. Ymgve (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]