Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongo (graphics program)

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo (graphics program)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is unsourced and not entirely notable in my opinion. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an interesting little program, but I couldn't easily google any reliable sources. Probably has a core of faithful users, but not really suitable for an encyclopaedia, I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there is next to zero coverage on the web and news sources. A search on Google Scholar for something like Mongo Tonry (the author) or Mongo graphics reveals quite a lot of references in academic literature. It also reveals that the lack of coverage on the web could be reflective of the program's age - it seems to date to 1987. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you located academic sources which you think are adequate to establish notability, would you post them here? – Pnm (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried following Pit-yacker's advice, and I found quite a few papers noting Mongo as the plotting software the authors used or are thankful for. This doesn't look like what I would consider as a proof of notability. Not that I want this article deleted, but I fail to find anything to argue for keeping. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.