Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliView
as . Considering the relative abundance of sources for software, I generally expect some solid reliable independent secondary sources. Over here the research paper is not an independent source. The other research papers simply mention that they use the tool, but nothing about the software itself. I see this situation as having a credible claim of significance but not enough for notability. I understand that this is a tool in a niche field, but I still expect some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. (Tools/apps exist for every small field but we can't include them all per . Which is why I insist on some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. If a tool is really notable, it will not be a problem to find non-trivial coverage
— User:Lemongirl942, 07:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia:Too soon)