The result was delete. Many opinions on both sides of the discussion are entirely beside the point and are discounted, but one important principal argument for deletion - that the text is almost entirely unsourced original research - has not been seriously addressed by "keep" opinions. As verifiability and the prohibition of original research are core policies and can't be overridden by editorial consensus, the article is deleted. This is without prejudice to a less deficient recreation. Sandstein 08:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT The ChampionMan 1234 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Thanks for everybody who participated. Please, continue commenting, while I will answer some of the concerns here and finish updating the main article in 1-2 days.
The goals of the article (some of them maybe still not achieved):
I believe these facts are not result of original research; they are not known to everybody while are of public interest. For example look at how this topic is mentioned on www.stackoverflow.com:
Let me put some of my thoughts:
Code-Analysis ( talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear everybody, I see that several comments state that:
I updated places that are directly mentioned above. Still planning to make major changes.
“ | The grammar of programming language can be considered either in the wide terms that include specification of everything what is allowed and what is not allowed in the language or in the narrow terms that describe only the formal grammar of the language that is suitable for automatic creation of LR parsers. Both views have reasons and ground behind them. Many readers, especially the users of the language think that grammar is a description of the language; once you know the grammar you can write/modify/fix programs in it. | ” |
— Code-Analysis |
The result was delete. Many opinions on both sides of the discussion are entirely beside the point and are discounted, but one important principal argument for deletion - that the text is almost entirely unsourced original research - has not been seriously addressed by "keep" opinions. As verifiability and the prohibition of original research are core policies and can't be overridden by editorial consensus, the article is deleted. This is without prejudice to a less deficient recreation. Sandstein 08:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT The ChampionMan 1234 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Thanks for everybody who participated. Please, continue commenting, while I will answer some of the concerns here and finish updating the main article in 1-2 days.
The goals of the article (some of them maybe still not achieved):
I believe these facts are not result of original research; they are not known to everybody while are of public interest. For example look at how this topic is mentioned on www.stackoverflow.com:
Let me put some of my thoughts:
Code-Analysis ( talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear everybody, I see that several comments state that:
I updated places that are directly mentioned above. Still planning to make major changes.
“ | The grammar of programming language can be considered either in the wide terms that include specification of everything what is allowed and what is not allowed in the language or in the narrow terms that describe only the formal grammar of the language that is suitable for automatic creation of LR parsers. Both views have reasons and ground behind them. Many readers, especially the users of the language think that grammar is a description of the language; once you know the grammar you can write/modify/fix programs in it. | ” |
— Code-Analysis |