Deletion of Comparison of hardware random number generators

Comment: In the past, I have defended articles from the accusation of violating  because, even though they listed commercial products, they provided more and different information than a manufacturer's catalog. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (3rd nomination)|Example.) This, however, falls on the wrong side of that line
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: hmm, I came here with the gut feeling it's  (one to avoid), and it is linked from outside WP. The NOT directory argument seems convincing. As a spinout or table too big for the article it's good, but maybe the issue is that the items aren't notable. (ps the nom incorrectly states software, this is hardware
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)

Comment: It isn't clear to me that any editors have so far tried to provide enough sourcing for the article to establish . If they do so, they may succeed and the article should then unquestionably be kept. (I hope so, because this is a useful article.) Certainly, it is hard to provide citations for a deleted article! If it such an attempt has definitely been tried, and failed, however, then deletion is probably fair
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)