PackCC : Shellwood ( talk ) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub.  Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights.  Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer.  Arithy ( talk ) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links.  i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO .  imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient.  Howrued ( talk ) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply.  Howrued ( talk ) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The points I'd like to say are: The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users.  Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers.  This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small.  There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect.  The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page.  Arithy ( talk ) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "i think it's a bit dishonest": it's irrelevant to this argument.  I expect you to argue more logically.  [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy ( talk ) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The additional point I'd like to say is: We should see the current status, not the origin.  Arithy ( talk ) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad.  even if there was minor housekeeping, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability.  Howrued ( talk ) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability.  if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it.  Howrued ( talk ) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's just your sentiments regarding software.  According to your criterion, no one can create any pages.  Is it really what Wikipedia should be?  Arithy ( talk ) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't really understand what you mean by this.  my criterion (and wikipedia's)? isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability.  Howrued ( talk ) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity.  I think it is already guaranteed by other users.  By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before.  I cannot help wondering if you have other intention.  Arithy ( talk ) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd.  i do not, however, have anything against you personally.  i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON .  Howrued ( talk ) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion.  Howrued ( talk ) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the general notability guidelines .  The only source provided does not even mention it.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of keeping the article that concluded with "I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically".  Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability.  Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find that this has any significant coverage.  Does not seem to meet general notability criteria.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:14, 21 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete