Revision as of 23:33, 10 June 2015 edit ChristerW (talk \| contribs) 23 edits →DbVisualizer ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:51, 10 June 2015 edit undo Rpclod (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,621 edits →DbVisualizer Next edit →
Line 17: The same logic applies to the Web. A single entry or review may not be enough to establish notability, but if a great number of the hits point in the same direction, common sense may tell us we have something. Of the 340k or so hits on Google, the majority is obviously of low value. But I followed your links and the suggestion to try more specialized searches. Google Scholar - 79 hits, Google books - 359 hits, and Google News - 73 hits, all for "DbVisualizer". [[User:ChristerW\|ChristerW]] ([[User talk:ChristerW\|talk]]) 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Fails [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]- just because you can find some hits on Google doesn't make those sources relevant and worthwhile. [[User:Joseph2302\|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302\|talk]]) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC) How can you state categorically that 79 academic references on Google Scholar are not relevant after reviewing the post for 7 minutes? Or the 359 books referenced? Where is common sense? [[User:ChristerW\|ChristerW]] ([[User talk:ChristerW\|talk]]) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)<small>— [[User:ChristerW\|ChristerW]] ([[User talk:ChristerW\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ChristerW\|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account\|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbVisualizer: Difference between revisions