Expert review edit
- 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)
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)
- I think your suspicions are correct and that the topic very likely isn't notable. Iknowyourider (t c) 14:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Notable! edit
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)
- 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)