Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E equational 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E equational theorem prover

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

This article appears to be written almost entirely by the author of the software concerned. Nearly all of the sources the article cites are the author's own works (scholarly journal and conference articles which are not necessarily inherently notable). Seems therefore of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (if not Speedy keep). Many high quality citations. If the WP editor has a COI, that might be a reason to contact them politely and/or improve the article. But the dozen citations to good journals and books is far more than enough for an obvious keep. LotLE×talk 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the creator of the theorem was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Schulz. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources, not all of them by the author of the program. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was obviously subjected to independent scrutiny see E_equational_theorem_prover#Competitions, which is sourced from 3rd party publications. Pcap ping 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the sources are not by its author and are reliable, peer reviewed publications. Galatee (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Somewhat reluctant keep, as it is a bit WP:COI-ish but I think it runs over the WP:N threshold ivo sources. Springnuts (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.