Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradox (theorem prover)


 * 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. Tone 17:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Paradox (theorem prover)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. A few passing mentions, in in-depth analysis/reviews. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The nomination seems to describe the situation fairly accurately. In addition, the paper that describes the software ("New techniques that improve MACE-style model ﬁnding") looks to have only 12 citations on Google Scholar, which is not a sign that the wider academic community has taken note of it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet what ought to be done with the article, but my argument above is obsolete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep ... There's at least a couple of versions of versions of "New techniques that improve MACE-style model ﬁnding" about (same content different page layout) and semantic scholar claims cited by 294 and highly influential on 44 papers. While I'd quite possibly accept that as a significant over-estimate we do have an article that is sufficently referenced for retention and could be improved by those more knowledgable in the subject than I.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know why Google Scholar does not find the main paper if given the title, but if you look under the main author, Koen Claessen, it finds a version of the paper with 279 citations - which is significant (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-sGcY-QAAAAJ&hl=en). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:16, 12 November 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.