Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey Quality Prediction


 * 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   delete. Lacks sufficient independent significant coverage. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey Quality Prediction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD - Non notable software product, no significant coverage available. Codf1977 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search of GBooks turns up two independent books which discuss this tool's value in assessing the quality of surveys. 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.  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. The book is reviewed in . 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. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 as significant coverage in the WP:GNG ? Codf1977 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the WP:GNG"? 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 WP:GNG.
 * 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 Wikipedia expects articles to be WP:NPOV, I believe nominations of AfD should be as NPOV as possible. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "no significant coverage available" is misleading ? I was unable to find anything that "address the subject directly in detail" the links you provide are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. HowardBGolden (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on HowardBGolden find. Click on his links, those books seem like third party coverage to me.   D r e a m Focus  18:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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 WP:RS; the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool. The third link provided is immaterial: per WP:N, secondary sources must address the subject in detail; 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 enough independent secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. It's a categoric fail. — Chromancer  talk/cont 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Chromancer engages in a creative belittling of reliable sources. First, the authors' book was not self-published nor is it advertising. It was published by a reliable well-known publisher. Second, the statement "the [second] 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 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 they 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 research. Chromancer claims that there isn't enough 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. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. To address HowardBGolden's objections in detail:
 * A book written by the designers of the program does not constitute a secondary source on themselves. To quote WP:N: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject."
 * Neither can you assert that the editors 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 author's work become notable because they write a book about it.
 * An offhand mention that a program was used does not, as WP:GNG 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 mention.
 * The argument that book = computer program or computer program = book would contribute towards my argument, leading to the conclusion that if they are not independent of one another, then they certainly cannot be used as WP:RS on one another.
 * And the implicit fifth: I said there wasn't enough secondary coverage, but never said you needed a certain number of sources. What this program would need to be notable is dedicated coverage independent 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. — Chromancer  talk/cont 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal Your statements are factually incorrect as follows:
 * 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' methodology and software on pages 14 and 15 (see above) is likewise independent.
 * 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 their field.
 * 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." &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The book and the program have been made to provide a tool for assessing the quality of questionnaires. This book was published by Wiley, a reputed company for publishing technical journals. The program has been developed as a tool for Windows by Microsoft. 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. -- JHvW  (talk)   08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That has not addressed the point of the nomination, that there is no independent significant coverage of the software, just beeing written for Windows by Microsoft does not make it notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep 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. scope_creep (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because as some already mentioned "there is no independent significant coverage"; books written by the software developer don't constitute independent significant coverage.— Chris! c / t 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks significant coverage in independent sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lack significant independent coverage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I too do not consider the sources sufficiently independent for demonstrating the notability.   DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.