Talk:Danny Sullivan (technologist)/Archives/2013

More Sources

If somebody would like to work on this article, here are a list of sources provided by the subject. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Engine trouble The Guardian, Sept. 5, 2002 http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,786350,00.html

For online shoppers, a sorry 'search' The Christian Science Monitor, July 22, 2002 http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0722/p14s03-wmcn.html

AOL Replaces Overture With Google New York Times, May 2, 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/technology/ebusiness/02GOOG.html

Search engine upstart Teoma takes aim at Google AP, March 31, 2002 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/31/financial1640EST0028.DTL

Your Search For an Engine Stops With Google Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A244-2002Jan18.html

Seeking search engine perfection The Guardian, Jan. 17, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,634553,00.html

Google sees profit in product images News.com, Dec. 19, 2001 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8225588.html

Striving to Top the Search Lists New York Times, Dec. 10. 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/10/technology/ebusiness/10ECOM.html

A simple thanks to mother of all search engines Chicago Tribune, Nov. 22, 2001 -- no longer online --

Google evaluates subscription options News.com, Oct. 25, 2001 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7661450.html

Cyber Law Journal: Invisible Publishing Sparks a Lawsuit New York Times, June 29, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/technology/29CYBERLAW.html

Paid Placement Is Catching On in Web Searches New York Times, June 4, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/technology/04GOTO.html

A Search Engine Goes Beyond Google New York Times, May 17, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/technology/17SEAR.html

Go.com: Just Go, Already Forbes, March 13, 2001 http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/13/0313go.html

Teacup Rescue Dogs Vancouver Village Voice, March 5, 2001 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0110/gallagher.shtml

Search results becoming more commercial San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 15, 2001 -- no longer online --

The Search Engine as Crystal Ball New York Times, Feb. 5, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/05/technology/05LYCO.html

The tricks that win clicks BBC, Jan. 22, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/1126306.stm

Firms pay for search engine play AP, Dec. 11, 2000 -- no longer online --

Google Senses That It's Time to Grow Up San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25, 2000 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/08/25/BU51614.DTL

In Search of Google Time, Aug. 21, 2000 -- no longer online --

The Search Engine as Cyborg New York Times, June 29, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/circuits/articles/29sear.html

Lycos to hand off Net-search business Boston Globe, June 19, 2000 -- no longer online --

Google Searches For Success Forbes, May 2, 2000 http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/00/may/0502/feat.htm

Going Gaga for Google PC World, April 20, 2000 -- no longer online --

Helping Webmasters Land in Search Engines' Nets New York Times, March 23, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/circuits/articles/23sull.html

That's Mr. Search Engine to You Wired, March 10, 2000 http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,34753,00.html

Search sites brush up on people skills USA Today, Jan. 24, 2000 -- no longer online --

Web search results still have human touch News.com, Dec. 27, 1999 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1507039.html

Google Keeps Search Simple New York Times, Oct. 6, 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/cyber/articles/06google.html

Searches Where Less, Not More, Is Better New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/circuits/articles/30pete.html

Driving The Web Engines Newsweek, May 25, 1998 -- no longer online --

The Net Column The Guardian, Nov. 5, 1997 -- no longer online --

Notability

subject not notable -tags included.

Given the extensive list of sources covering this individual above, please explain exactly how the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If others agree, the tag can be restored - but you cannot tag an article that meets the criteria simply because you don't like them. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that the meaning of "coverage" in notability criteria was that the article (or a portion thereof) was actually about the subject, and not just quoting the subject. - Afiler (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The motives of the person questioning notability need to be evaluated in the context of the subject's published narrative: --Openly (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the link provided in that post (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola&oldid=456941888), the rationale for the deletion of the former Jessie Stricchiola article would likely apply in this case too, i.e.: "She's quoted in multiple articles, but not much coverage about her per se." - Afiler (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend applying a small amount of WP:IAR and not doing a lengthy debate at this time, as it looks retaliatory for criticism (n.b. I'm not claiming anyone is acting in bad faith, but the appearance is of getting back at a critic). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)