Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CADE ATP System Competition


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

CADE ATP System Competition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's references are either written by the competition organizer, or imply inherent notability derived from the competition's participating theorem provers, or from similar competitions. w umbolo  ^^^  13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. CASC has been a major event in Automated Reasoning for over 20 years, and has, to a significant degree, shaped the field of Automated Theorem Proving. It has inspired other competitions like SMT-COMP and the SAT Race, with papers acknowledging that influence. There are literally 100s of papers mentioning CASC on Google Scholar ( shows 5600 hits, I've only checked the first 120 or so]). Yes, the reports on the competition are mostly co-written by the main organiser, but they have appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific press, e.g. the Journal of Automated Reasoning, AI Communications, and various Springer-published proceedings of A- and A+-level conferences. There are also plenty of papers not by the organiser. This seems to be an ill-informed proposal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: this source calls the competition a "world cup of provers", which I believe is a sufficient claim of significance. Not a run-of-the-mill event. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not address my notability concerns. w umbolo   ^^^  16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Credible claim of notability in its field, with appropriate sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * which sources? Are we looking at the same article? w umbolo   ^^^  18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The article I look at currently has 9 sources, 8 from peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and 5 of these independent of the organiser. And there is hundreds more on Google Scholar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2018 (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.