Revision as of 23:51, 10 June 2015 edit Rpclod (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,621 edits →DbVisualizer ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:44, 11 June 2015 edit undo MrOllie (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 255,822 edits which ones specifically? Next edit →
Line 18: *'''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> :Perhaps you can point out some specific ones that have some [[WP:GNG\|substantial detail]] on DbVisualizer, and not just a trivial mention? I picked a few to check from those search results at random, but [https://books.google.com/books?id=GzeODCVG26UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dbvisualizer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgUahUKEwikle-dsobGAhUEZK0KHRSWANo#v=onepage&q&f=false The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600] didn't have much detail. - [[User:MrOllie\|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie\|talk]]) 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbVisualizer: Difference between revisions