425:; a mention that a particular program was used to prepare a survey does not meet a nontrivial standard. The fourth link you bring up has no abstract, preventing anyone from determining whether it reviews anything, but whether it reviews the book or not, this article is about a computer program, not a book; reviews of a book would be wholly irrelevant. Moreover, even if these sources were to be included, the program doesn't have
468:
self-published nor is it advertising. It was published by a reliable well-known publisher. Second, the statement "the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool" is unsupported by any logic, and it clearly doesn't apply to the academic conference at which
523:
of said book constitute a secondary source. The editors of a book are materially and monetarily involved in the publishing process, and therefore are affiliated with their authors; any other interpretation is disingenuous. You do not become notable because you write an autobiography; neither does an
232:
I dispute your assertion that I did not make an effort to look for references, my nomination is based on the lack of significant coverage are you really comfortable claiming that the book you list, plus the other one that comes up in a GBooks search get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted
592:
Contrary to your repeated misunderstanding, the editors of the conference book are certainly independent of the authors. They are the scholars of the conference committee who chose the articles to present based on their assessment of notability in their own field. Their discussion of the authors'
473:
find it notable. Fourth, the computer program is an implementation of the methodology of the book. The two are different facets of the same gem. The review of the book establishes its notability in its field and thereby establishes the notability of the software which is the result of the same
264:
In my opinion, your original nomination ("no significant coverage available") is misleading at best. If you saw the coverage I mentioned above, I believe you should (IMO) have explained why you believed it wasn't significant. Again, IMO, that would have been more intellectually honest. Just as
531:
states, "address the subject directly in detail". If it doesn't, it doesn't count as a secondary source. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". We can't pretend that when you mention a computer program once in the entire 258 pages that it constitutes more than a trivial
303:
Clearly, significant coverage is available in the authors' own book. I believe you should have cited it. If you believe that the book cannot be considered independent, that is a separate issue. "No significant coverage available" is patently false and misleading. —
558:
of it, its authors, and people getting paid based on the work of the authors (i.e., the editors). So far you have one trivial reference and a claimed review of the book- which, let us not forget, is still not the computer program.
717:
Fair number of gbhits, and with a Wiley book published about the process and software, gives it wide coverage. I think the article needs to be expanded to explain how the software and process works, wikified and cleaned up.
155:
208:
596:
The review of the authors' book in the scholarly journal is also independent. It establishes that the journal article's author and the journal's editors believed that the subject is notable in
257:"? What does that mean? Is there more "consensus" information that tells the "norms"? Who "accepts" or rejects? These are sincere questions. I'm giving my opinion based on my understanding of
110:
149:
214:
409:. While this nomination isn't stated very well, it's still valid. The book written by the authors is a primary source and does not demonstrate significant secondary coverage per
216:. It is difficult for me to believe that the AfD nominator made even a cursory search for references. It's very frustrating to me to see this sort of rush to delete articles. —
735:
because as some already mentioned "there is no independent significant coverage"; books written by the software developer don't constitute independent significant coverage.—
211:
205:
331:
603:
The use of the software in the independently written book is noted prominently. The authors of the independent book "address the subject directly in detail." —
83:
78:
115:
640:. The article does not do the subject justice and should be expanded to meet the inclusion criteria for WP. Just summarily dismissing it would be a waste. --
207:
has several pages describing the tool (written by the authors). However, on pages 13 and 14, the book's editors (independent) discuss the value of the tool.
87:
210:
states that the tool was used in developing a questionnaire used in the book. The tool is an implementation of the authors' methods described in their book.
478:
independent secondary coverage. I'm not aware of any specific number being required by any WP policy or guideline. If such exists, please point it out. —
70:
535:
The argument that book = computer program or computer program = book would contribute towards my argument, leading to the conclusion that if they are
469:
the paper was presented. Third, use of a product establishes that it was considered appropriate for its use by the scholars involved. This means that
660:
That has not addressed the point of the nomination, that there is no independent significant coverage of the software, just beeing written for
743:
413:; the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool. The third link provided is immaterial: per
357:
170:
137:
17:
628:
The book and the program have been made to provide a tool for assessing the quality of questionnaires. This book was published by
569:
443:
204:
A quick search of GBooks turns up two independent books which discuss this tool's value in assessing the quality of surveys.
131:
812:
793:
776:
756:
727:
706:
677:
653:
612:
575:
487:
449:
401:
369:
346:
313:
298:
278:
246:
225:
195:
52:
550:
secondary coverage, but never said you needed a certain number of sources. What this program would need to be notable is
827:
36:
127:
74:
749:
177:
826:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
66:
58:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
789:
608:
483:
365:
309:
274:
221:
723:
143:
737:
629:
285:
What part of "no significant coverage available" is misleading ? I was unable to find anything that "
632:, a reputed company for publishing technical journals. The program has been developed as a tool for
378:
Based on HowardBGolden find. Click on his links, those books seem like third party coverage to me.
669:
290:
238:
187:
163:
687:
785:
673:
604:
479:
361:
305:
294:
270:
242:
217:
191:
801:
I too do not consider the sources sufficiently independent for demonstrating the notability.
641:
771:
661:
633:
516:: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject."
342:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
266:
719:
379:
528:
430:
258:
254:
234:
560:
461:
434:
540:
410:
702:
648:
513:
414:
808:
767:
464:
engages in a creative belittling of reliable sources. First, the authors' book was
338:
253:"Get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the
186:
Contested PROD - Non notable software product, no significant coverage available.
104:
593:
methodology and software on pages 14 and 15 (see above) is likewise independent.
49:
697:
665:
637:
803:
690:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
539:
independent of one another, then they certainly cannot be used as
820:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
524:
author's work become notable because they write a book about it.
269:, I believe nominations of AfD should be as NPOV as possible. —
508:
of the program does not constitute a secondary source on
527:
An offhand mention that a program was used does not, as
100:
96:
92:
695:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
162:
764:, lacks significant coverage in independent sources.
48:. Lacks sufficient independent significant coverage.
587:
Your statements are factually incorrect as follows:
176:
499:. To address HowardBGolden's objections in detail:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
830:). No further edits should be made to this page.
474:research. Chromancer claims that there isn't
332:list of Software-related deletion discussions
289:" the links you provide are not independent.
8:
546:And the implicit fifth: I said there wasn't
326:
784:lack significant independent coverage. --
330:: This debate has been included in the
429:independent secondary coverage to meet
265:Knowledge (XXG) expects articles to be
287:address the subject directly in detail
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
356:This article has been nominated for
24:
421:sources must address the subject
519:Neither can you assert that the
233:as significant coverage in the
813:23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
794:19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
777:22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
757:18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
728:18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
707:16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
678:11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
654:08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
613:01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
576:06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
488:23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
450:21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
402:18:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
370:17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
314:01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
299:11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
53:01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
347:00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
279:00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
247:05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
226:02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
196:21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
668:does not make it notable.
433:. It's a categoric fail. —
847:
67:Survey Quality Prediction
59:Survey Quality Prediction
823:Please do not modify it.
213:The book is reviewed in
32:Please do not modify it.
504:A book written by the
44:The result was
709:
372:
349:
335:
838:
825:
775:
755:
752:
746:
740:
694:
692:
651:
646:
572:
565:
446:
439:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
352:
336:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
846:
845:
841:
840:
839:
837:
836:
835:
834:
828:deletion review
821:
765:
754:
750:
744:
738:
736:
685:
649:
642:
574:
570:
561:
543:on one another.
448:
444:
435:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
844:
842:
833:
832:
816:
815:
796:
779:
759:
742:
730:
711:
710:
693:
682:
681:
680:
657:
656:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
601:
594:
589:
588:
579:
578:
568:
544:
533:
525:
517:
501:
500:
491:
490:
453:
452:
442:
404:
373:
350:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
282:
281:
262:
229:
228:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
843:
831:
829:
824:
818:
817:
814:
810:
806:
805:
800:
797:
795:
791:
787:
786:Cameron Scott
783:
780:
778:
773:
769:
763:
760:
758:
753:
747:
741:
734:
731:
729:
725:
721:
716:
713:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
691:
689:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
658:
655:
652:
647:
645:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
614:
610:
606:
605:HowardBGolden
602:
599:
595:
591:
590:
586:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
566:
564:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
498:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
485:
481:
480:HowardBGolden
477:
472:
467:
463:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
440:
438:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
399:
377:
374:
371:
367:
363:
362:HowardBGolden
359:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
333:
329:
325:
324:
315:
311:
307:
306:HowardBGolden
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
271:HowardBGolden
268:
263:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
230:
227:
223:
219:
218:HowardBGolden
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
822:
819:
802:
798:
781:
761:
732:
714:
696:
686:
643:
625:
597:
584:
562:
555:
551:
547:
536:
520:
509:
505:
496:
475:
470:
465:
458:
436:
426:
422:
418:
406:
380:
375:
353:
327:
286:
201:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
720:scope_creep
715:Strong Keep
556:independent
512:. To quote
150:free images
563:Chromancer
510:themselves
462:Chromancer
437:Chromancer
666:Microsoft
638:Microsoft
554:coverage
552:dedicated
506:designers
423:in detail
419:secondary
339:• Gene93k
688:Relisted
670:Codf1977
585:Rebuttal
532:mention.
291:Codf1977
239:Codf1977
188:Codf1977
111:View log
768:Nuujinn
662:Windows
634:Windows
521:editors
497:Comment
459:Comment
267:WP:NPOV
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
799:Delete
782:Delete
762:Delete
739:Chris!
733:Delete
650:(talk)
600:field.
548:enough
529:WP:GNG
476:enough
431:WP:GNG
427:enough
407:Delete
358:rescue
259:WP:GNG
255:WP:GNG
235:WP:GNG
128:Google
88:delete
50:Jayjg
46:delete
809:talk
630:Wiley
598:their
541:WP:RS
411:WP:RS
397:Focus
354:Note:
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
790:talk
772:talk
724:talk
703:talk
698:Cirt
674:talk
644:JHvW
626:Keep
609:talk
571:cont
514:WP:N
484:talk
471:they
445:cont
415:WP:N
376:Keep
366:talk
343:talk
328:Note
310:talk
295:talk
275:talk
243:talk
222:talk
202:Keep
192:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
804:DGG
664:by
636:by
537:not
466:not
337:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
811:)
792:)
766:--
726:)
705:)
676:)
611:)
559:—
486:)
417:,
368:)
360:.
345:)
334:.
312:)
297:)
277:)
245:)
237:?
224:)
194:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
807:(
788:(
774:)
770:(
751:t
748:/
745:c
722:(
701:(
672:(
607:(
567:/
482:(
441:/
394:m
391:a
388:e
385:r
382:D
364:(
341:(
308:(
293:(
273:(
261:.
241:(
220:(
190:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.