Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logiweb


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Logiweb

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently a computer system for describing and checking formal mathematics. Not yet released and no attempt made to establish notability. (Prod removed with a rude, and inaccurate edit summary.) &mdash; RHaworth 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, I'm a little lost here.

As far as I can see, my article on Logiweb was first nominated for speedy deletion, then someone intervened, and now the article is marked for (non-speedy) deletion. But I am new to Wikipedia and could not trace exactly who said what when.

As far as I can see, the following issues have been raised:


 * A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
 * It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
 * It lacks a proof of notability.
 * Logiweb is not yet released.

The first point is true. I created Logiweb and I have used it and its predecessors for teaching logic at the University of Copenhagen for two decades. If my close connection to the system prevents inclusion in Wikipedia, I suppose there is nothing I can do about that, and then the article can be deleted without further discussion. I am not prepared to ask my research colleagues or my former students or Ph.D. students to write about the system just to circumvent rules.

Concerning the second point, I am in doubt. I cannot spot any non-neutral statement in what I wrote.

Concerning the third point, I need advice. I did read the rules about notability before I wrote the Wikipedia article. And I included references to two peer-reviewed papers about Logiweb. What more shall I do?

The Logiweb system belongs to the same family of systems as ACL2, Alt-Ergo, Automath, Coq, CVC, E, EQP, Gandalf, Gödel-machines, HOL, HOL Light, Isabelle, IsaPlanner, Jape, KED, KeY, KeYmaera, LCF, Leo II, LoTREC, MetaPRL, Matita, NuPRL, Otter, Paradox, PhoX, Prover9 / Mace4, PVS, SNARK, SPASS, Tau, Theorema, Acumen RuleManager, Alligator, CARINE, KIV, Mizar, Prover Plug-In, ProverBox, ResearchCyc, Simplify, SPARK, Spear modular arithmetic theorem prover, Theorem Proving System (TPS), Twelf, Vampire/Vampyre, Waldmeister mentioned at Automated theorem proving. In my opinion, some of them are much more notable than Logiweb, and some are at the same level of notability as Logiweb.

Concerning the fourth point, I would like to note that there have been 11 alpha test releases 2004-2006, 9 beta test releases 2006-2007, and 6 pre-releasess in 2009. The releases have mainly been used by students and Ph.D.-students at the University of Copenhagen, but the releases were mature enough for that use. The last beta test release was announced publicly in 2007 on relevant mailing lists (types, fom, and mkm). It is correct that Version 1.0.0 is not yet released.

Any suggestions on what I should do from here? Kgrue (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue here, not surprisingly, is third-party notability-- that is, evidence that other people of some importance care. GScholar shows references from other papers besides those authored by its creator, but they are thin on the ground and it's not clear that any of them are more than catalogues of systems/techniques. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only references are articles by Logiweb's creator, as it were, so no third-party evidence. Fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as there are multiple articles that reference the system. It appears to be notable.  Another source, found via google news archives: .  3 is usually enough to establish notability.  There are certainly 2. Gosox5555 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the notability here. Besides, I am not sure about the second reference listed--that's a published series of lecture notes? The PDF linked to does not suggest it's part of a book. Anyway, that article also has this in its bibliography: Grue, K.: Logiweb. In Kamareddine, F., ed.: Mathematical Knowledge Management Symposium 2003. Volume 93 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science., Elsevier (2004) 70–101. Now that would be something, of course--but my problem is that even published by Elsevier, this can hardly be called a third-party publication. So, basically, as Ironholds says: notability is not established. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough secondary coverage to be notable.  Once it is released, if it has a significant impact on the field, it should receive enough mention by reliable sources to stand up to the notability tests.  Remember, there is no deadline, and Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Pcap  ping  23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Right now it has coverage only in primary sources and it's used almost exclusively in the courses of one or two universities (if we count ). It may be recreated (or undeleted) later if secondary sources pick it up. Pcap ping  00:02, 8 January 2010 (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.