Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy encoding

Legacy encoding

While "legacy" and "encoding" are perfectly valid terms, the term "legacy encoding" does not appear to be a widely used nor accepted term. This article has no references to verify its content or to provide examples of the use of the term "legacy encoding" in the real world. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Very valid and actual term. "does not appear to be a widely used" is a quite strange claim: 22,500 google hits are exactly on topic, with quite a few readily references from reliable sources, such as SourceForge, linux.org, not to say about IBM. Clearly misguided nomination, made without minimal due diligence. I added one quite comprehensive IBM reference, found after 45 seconds of google browsing. `'Míkka 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, and not evidence of any sources.--Sefringle^Talk 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely used (if somewhat loaded) term --SJK 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This newly invented term oversimplifies complexity of the problem. The article suggests that Unicode is the future while everything else is legacy (read: nasty, obsolete, worthless and better not to talk about) which is merely an opinion. UTF16 is not mentioned (it can't "represent all of Unicode" w/o using horrible kludges). Last, the text completely ignores the real legacy encodings like 5/6/7 bits per character or long forgotten teletype codes. Pavel Vozenilek 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the text omits some legacy encodings like EBCDIC or such, then the article should be completed or partially rewritten (Unicode clearing out and mentioning UTF8, UTF16 ... ), not deleted. --Mpx 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]