Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LALR parser generator

LALR parser generator

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

Contains duplicate information. All information presented is included in the LALR parser article except for the BNF reference. One could be informed about what a LALR parser generator is by looking at LALR parser and Parser generator articles.
In a previous merge discussion for LALR parser and this article it was mentioned that this article could contain information about the process of generating the algorithm. In its current form the article doesn't go down into that, instead it is just a general presentation of the LALR algorithm. I do not object to having an article about the generation process but this in its current form is not such an article. We can make a deletion with a note about what the article should be about. Nxavar (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past merge discussion at Talk:LALR_parser#Merger_proposal

These are not the same thing. One is a tool used to make the other. Both are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LALR parser. I disagree with nom that it would add nothing. It adds the whole discussion of actual software that really exists to generate LALR parsers. That the initial merge might need additional work or lack depth is entirely fixable. I recommend pasting the whole LALR parser generator article text into the LALR Parser article, in between LALR parser#Generating LALR parsers and LALR parser#Advantages and letting the community go to work on making it better. Msnicki (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep (per the past merge discussion at Talk:LALR_parser#Merger_proposal) or Merge and redirect to LALR parser (per Msnicki). Although conceptually distinct, there is an obvious relationship – that's why the article LALR parser has a section Generating LALR parsers, and a combined article will still have a very manageable length. In any case, do not delete; this is clearly notable and at the very least a plausible search term. --Lambiam 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the merge proposal I think that we should keep just the introductory paragraph since the rest is already mentioned. Concerning the notability remark, making this article a subsection of the LALR parser as Lambian suggested means that this would be still a WP topic. Take a look also at the LR parser and LL parser articles; Looks like unified articles are something acceptable for parsers. Nxavar (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: these are two separate but related entities.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Even the nominator says "I do not object to having an article about the generation process" and every other comment was opposed to deletion, and yet it's been relisted twice without explanation. WP:SK ground 1, surely?—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though the article could stand beefing up (e.g. adding a description of the generation algorithm), working from first principles there is plenty of room for separate articles on LALR parsing and LALR parser generation. -- BenTels (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]