Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwetoolkit
I was unable to find multiple, in depth, secondary, reliable sources discussing this software. Thus the software seems to fail general notability guidelines per . I could believe that some of the conference papers noted above are peer reviewed, which would make them reliable, but they are still primary and not independent of the program's creators.  Citations are nice, but are not considered in depth. My sense is that this is a case of ; not enough time has elapsed for in-depth secondary RS to have been written and published
— User:Mark, 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia:Notability)