Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LALR Parser Generator

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. Courcelles 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LALR Parser Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The prod was removed by an IP. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Based on the many Google scholar hits, this tool has been widely used, including for well-known products such as the Java editor of Eclipse. The name is rather dumb, and I suggest moving the article to LALR Parser Generator (LPG), whereas LALR Parser Generator ought to be an {{R from other capitalisation}} to LALR parser generator.  --Lambiam 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There may be many Google hits for this, but I strongly suspect they refer to the computing term LALR parser generator and not specifically this software. Concur with the notability argument, and I have some concern that the choice of name is an attempt at advertising without advertising.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Then try this search with a disambiguating extra term, or this search using the earlier name.  --Lambiam 22:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one specific incarnation of a LALR parser generator. Although a useful tool and easily notable by counting gHits, there's just very little one can say about it in an encyclopedic sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 23 August 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.