Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CADE ATP System Competition

CADE ATP System Competition

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([1] 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)[reply]
Keep: this source [2] 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)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: That does not address my notability concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability in its field, with appropriate sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: which sources? Are we looking at the same article? wumbolo ^^^ 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]