Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey Quality Prediction
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 ; the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool. The third link provided is immaterial: per , ''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 . It's a categoric fail. —&nbsp
— User:Chromancer, 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:N||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)