Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decode-Encode Language Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decode-Encode_Language

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 delete. –MuZemike 17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decode-Encode Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While many of the 6000 RFCs are notable (and indeed used as the basis of systems like wikipedia), I can find no evidence that this particular RFC is notable. The name isn't conducive to googling, so I'd encourage other's to have a crack too. The fact that the internet version of the RFC appears to contain OCR errors that appear to have gone unnoticed is also telling. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The OCR errors are because it was written in 1969, before the days anyone thought of putting documents on a computer (they were way too expensive back then).That makes it quite historical; way ahead of its time like much else in the Englebart SRI lab which developed early Arpanet applications. But it is already mentioned in Rulifson's article. RFC 2555 does mention it on its 30th anniversary. In some ways it had a similar function to the original purpose of the NeWS window system, ActiveX, and the Java programming language which runs on billions of devices today. It should be mentioned probably in those aritcles too, much of the computer networking history on Wikipedia starts in the 1990s and ignores the previous 30 years. But probably does not need one of its own, especially one that does not give historic context. I do not think it was ever implemented, for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.