Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LRGen

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LRGen

LRGen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable software; spammy article. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Run of the mill parser that doesn't actually assert any notability. Written in quite a promotional way, so I agree with the nominator, very spammy. Also are direct links to downloads allowed in articles? ---- WebHamster 00:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why not? I'm not sure if I'd endorse it as an editorial option, but there's no policy against it. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• LRGen is a product similar to ANTLR and GOLD (parser). They have not been deleted. Why should LRGen be deleted, then. If the wording looks like advertising, OK. That is perhaps a good reason. Then perhaps change the words. This LRGen does offer something that is very difficult to accomplish -- minimal LR(1) parser-table construction: the power of LR(1) and the small size of LALR(1). I don't know of another tool that offers that feature. Also it offers something that no other tool offers: TBNF grammar notation. You're welcome to your opinion, but then tell me why this is spam and ANTLR and GOLD (parser) are not. Paulbmann

• In answer to your "why not" question, please see WP:WAX. ---- WebHamster 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Those also show considerably more notability than LRGen, and in fact do sound less like an advertisement. The Evil Spartan 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There is not enough reliable source material independent of LRGen to permit the development of an attributable article. I also agree that CSD A7 no reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies, but regular delete would be better since we already discussed this for more than five days. -- Jreferee T/C 07:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article fails to cite sources or even assert notability. Dlabtot 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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.