Talk:DSSP (programming)

Expert review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was that the topic is not notable. Will propose deletion. --B. Wolterding 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether this topic is notable enough to have its own article. The article cites a number of sources, and so the content is verifiable. Still it seems to me that this historical programming language never grew to more than a research topic of a small group of scientists. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic to judge whether it should be kept as a separate article, or should be removed, or maybe merged somewhere else. Opinions are welcome; please add your comments below. --B. Wolterding 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suspicions are correct and that the topic very likely isn't notable. Iknowyourider (t c) 14:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable!

Actually: the text is insignificantly written, since ternary and Setun are mentioned by subordinate clauses, but the topic is highly interesting in a computer science perspective, since it claims that ternary computing is superior to binary! I propose that DSSP is merged into the Setun article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the comment by Rursus as a reason to remove the PROD notice. I have no opinion on this article. Somebody who doesn't think it's worthwhile should argue as much in an AfD. -- Hoary 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]