Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local C compiler


 * 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 keep. John254 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Local C compiler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded by Whispering. The reason given was "Article gives no indication of notability or verifiability with multiple independent reliable sources." - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. To be frank, I think Wikipedia's been far too aggressive lately. I understand wanting have high standards and all that, but I don't think that has to mean kicking out everything that doesn't already come loaded with sources or fair use rationales or whatever the reason is for a given thing. I think common sense should prevail. Common sense tells me that this may well be a notable compiler, particularly considering the Quake 3 integration. We need to give this article the time of day, at least, whatever its current deficiencies. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like it could have been tagged and dated for lacking notability, opposed to just prodded. --Emesee 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source. There are plenty of articles in the literature that discuss this compiler. Jakew 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jakew. Should be easy adding sources as this is quite notable. --Allefant 10:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.  -- KTC 13:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Satisfactory. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probable Keep: This article should be kept, but I would consider a rename to LCC (compiler) as the terms "little C compiler" are quite misleading in terms of the full history of LCC. As a reasonable-compiler-with-source, LCC is second on the list only to GCC.  The provisions of the LCC license (to personal-use-only) are probably the limiting factor in this compilers 16 year history.  However at the same time, it's not an article that makes me itch enough to want to fix it. —Sladen 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, all the references call it "lcc", not "local" or "little" C compiler, so I moved it. And I think, the article has some potential (mention this license, possible other users of lcc (seems you can also use it to produce executables from standard C sources), lcc's architecture, ...) - maybe I'll get around to do some research if it's kept (the book and papers in google scholar are hard to access, but normal google also has like half a million hits for lcc compiler). --Allefant 12:35, 30 August 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.