Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MnoGoSearch


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MnoGoSearch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way does this unreferenced article meet GNG?Dialectric (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Preliminary response while I gather links: Why should I provide a detailed webliography of the contents GBooks for someone who appears to be impliedly admitting that he has not looked? In what way is the absence of references from this article relevant when sources are available in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere? James500 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage:                . One of those is two pages long, and if that is not significant coverage, nothing is. And there is more where that came from. James500 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PHP Pocket Reference just includes it in a list of functions. Google Hacking for Penetration Testers, Band 2 just includes it in a table. PHP 5-Migration: Was Sie beim Umstieg auf PHP 5.3 beachten müssen just includes it in a table. Debian GNU/Linux: Grundlagen, Einrichtung und Betrieb is just a one line listing. TYPO3 Kochbuch is just a passing mention. Linux, Apache, MySQL a PHP: instalace a konfigurace prostredí pro pokrocilé webové aplikace just includes it in a table. PHP 5 two passing mentions. Programming PHP just includes it in a table. Mastering HTML and XHTML a short paragraph in a list. PHP and PostgreSQL: Advanced Web Programming a short instruction. Keamanan Akses ke PostgreSQL Melalui PHP (Menggunakan Apache Web Server pada GNU/Linux) same again. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2003 : the Sixteenth Annual Conference a small description as the tool they used. Information Security and Assurance: 4th International Conference, ISA 2010, Miyazaki, Japan, June 23-25, 2010, Proceedings a mention. Introduction to Data Mining with Case Studies a short paragraph in a list.
 * Network Security Tools looks good. That's one.
 * I never implied I didn't look and you are not gathering links for me, you should be doing so to try demonstrate notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Programming PHP is a headed section. Mastering HTML and XHTML is a decent sized paragraph. I would not describe it as "short". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems is a decent sized passage. Introduction to Data Mining with Case Studies is a decent sized paragraph. Snippet view indicates that PHP Black Book mentions MnoGoSearch on 5 separate pages. It is likely that there is a very detailed discussion. Google Hacking for Penetration Testers says something that looks important regardless of its length. All of these look good to me. None of them look trivial. That is six, even without the best source. The two page discussion in Network Security Tools is massive and would be significant coverage in of itself even if there was nothing else. As for the rest, a sufficiently large number of single sentences and entries in tables and lists can contribute to notability as long as there are more detailed sources. I did not accuse you of not looking for sources. I was referring to the comment made by User:Dialectric. I do not have to demonstrate anything (though I think I have). NRVE clearly states that it is enough to argue that a topic is likely to have received significant coverage. James500 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * keep per Google Scolar search, Christian75 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mentions in scholarly articles does not establish notability. Which of these articles provides significant coverage?Dialectric (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Other people might not agree with your personal opinions about what is and is not "brief". GNG doesn't define significant coverage in precise language. James500 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC) In fact, if you read N carefully, it seems to be possible to satisfy it with a three sentence article, because that is all that the words "half" and "few" actually imply. James500 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) In fact, the canonical example of insignificant coverage given by GNG is a single sentence in a single source. I personally am inclined to define significant coverage as "something that can be detected with snippet view". None of this matters because the coverage in GBooks is far more extensive than that. James500 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course we are obliged to keep any topic that is likely to have received significant coverage. And where a topic is mentioned in 144 scholarly papers, you could infer that likelihood from the number alone. James500 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "something that can be detected with snippet view". So your definition of significant coverage is that the word appears? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is a passage that isn't so long that it can't be detected with snippet view. It will be less than a page. It is likely to be something that could be described as a "paragraph". James500 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (deliver)  @ 21:00, 2 September 2014 (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.