Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQAT

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ConQAT[edit]

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

I don't believe this software passes the threshold of notability. All references in the article are to primary sources, and the claims of notability in the article rest only on these primary sources. I searched Google, Google News, and Google Scholar for independent sources covering the product in-detail and turned up empty-handed. Psychonaut (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To cite notability: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications". All of the references in the article are contributions to the most well-respected international scientific conferences and journals of the IEEE, the most important professional institution in the area of computer science. These kinds of scientific publications all have to pass a rigorous review process. I added more references from non-primary sources to the article, again scientific publications of well-respected conferences written by research groups around the world (Canada, Spain, India, Germany etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuduprinz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 August 2013‎

Of the papers in the "References" section but not actually cited by the article:

The paper by Deissenboeck et al. is not independent and thus cannot be used as a reliable source to establish notability.
The paper by Kaur et al. most certainly did not pass a rigorous review process; the International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering has a highfalutin name and makes grandiose claims that its articles achieve "very high publicity and acquire very high reputation". It reality it appears to publish anything and everything submitted to it. It unabashedly promotes snake-oil cryptography whose authors are lazy (or stupid) enough to think that citing the IEEE home page, the Wikipedia home page, and the ASCII table is sufficient to prove cryptographic security [1]. It's got lots of pretty logos on its "Indexing" page, none of which belong to any major journal indexing services.
The article Martinez et al. doesn't discuss ConQAT in any depth; it makes only a passing mention of it. The authors point out that it was one tool among many that they could have used.
You claim the article by Gerardi & Quante is published by Springer in Softwaretechnik-Trends. I can see a publication by this name on the Springer website, but I don't see that article listed there. Isn't this actually their submission to the WSR 2012 workshop? If so, was it actually subject to peer review? If so, I agree that it counts towards establishing notability, though I wouldn't say that this publication alone is sufficient.
The paper by Stephan et al. again mentions ConQAT mostly in passing. It briefly outlines some planned experiments using ConQAT, but doesn't actually carry out these experiments. I don't think this paper establishes notability for this software. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:05, 12 August 2013 (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.