202:
accordingly. I have looked through the list of hits and, while it provides some verifiability, I am still not convinced the coverage demonstrates enough notability to merit an article. The first hit (ZDnet) is primarily about a film and only incidentally about the software and the rest doesn't seem to add up to much at all on cursory inspection. (Note: I didn't register for the articles that require an ID to read them. I just read the abstracts.) I guess the real question is: How many of these links would actually be useful as references for the article? I think the ZDNet one is the only candidate. --
201:
I made a mistake on the Google search. When I searched Google News I forgot I had to specifically ask for old articles to be included and drew a complete blank. I didn't mean to misrepresent the results of the search and I apologise if I did that unintentionally. I have amended the nomination
286:
When I look for notability rather than verifiability, I tend to look for inclusion guidelines rather than references exactly because of that reason. There's discussions what is enough references, but also what is non-trivial or reliable. In this case I wouldn't rely on press releases or the
148:
Not seeing significant RS coverage in Google. This is not a new article and it does not seem to have any hope of improving. Previous AfD was 3 years ago and did not reach a consensus. I think it is time to look at it again.
77:
170:. What we get into now, is that enough. Which begs the next question, what is enough? Is it a minimum of 3 or 20 or 50, perhaps a hundred? Boy I wish, we could have more definitive
137:
72:
265:
287:
software's website as the only sources. The question is how much the movie covers the info in the article and how independent the movie maker really was. --
178:, by at least half and reduce heartburn – grief – nervous twitches (developed by defending your point of view) – and other stress related phobias by 90%.
219:– No apologies necessary and I never thought that you are misrepresenting. In fact, this is the type of article that should be brought to a
104:
99:
108:
333:
294:
280:
249:
211:
192:
158:
91:
56:
17:
168:
348:
36:
317:
347:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
167:– Found more than 2 and less than 10 creditable – verifiable – reliable – 3rd party references, as shown here
292:
95:
276:
207:
154:
313:
232:
171:
237:
180:
288:
303:
228:
87:
62:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
329:
272:
203:
150:
220:
175:
50:
125:
325:
321:
223:
in that it is borderline and should have a consensus of the community to either
307:
310:
341:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
144:
Unreferenced and without any clear assertion of notability.
78:
Articles for deletion/Fog Creek
Copilot (2nd nomination)
132:
121:
117:
113:
231:
is what constitutes significant coverage to establish
235:. Sorry, just happened to pick your nomination :-(.
174:
I guarantee it would reduce the nominations, here at
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
351:). No further edits should be made to this page.
316:. The film about its development is reviewed
266:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
227:or that nasty thing done :-). My current
320:. Referenced in a peer-reviewed article
264:: This debate has been included in the
73:Articles for deletion/Fog Creek Copilot
70:
146:Not seeing any RS coverage in Google.
7:
69:
24:
302:. Notable product. Winner of a
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
334:20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
295:00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
281:23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
250:22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
212:22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
193:21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
159:20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
57:00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
368:
344:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
68:AfDs for this article:
44:The result was
304:Dr. Dobbs Journal
283:
269:
88:Fog Creek Copilot
63:Fog Creek Copilot
359:
346:
270:
260:
248:
191:
135:
129:
111:
53:
34:
367:
366:
362:
361:
360:
358:
357:
356:
355:
349:deletion review
342:
309:. Reviewed by
236:
179:
131:
102:
86:
83:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
365:
363:
354:
353:
337:
336:
297:
284:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
196:
195:
142:
141:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
364:
352:
350:
345:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
308:
306:"Jolt award"
305:
301:
298:
296:
293:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
267:
263:
259:
258:
251:
247:
246:
243:
240:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
190:
189:
186:
183:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
147:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
343:
340:
299:
261:
244:
241:
238:
224:
216:
187:
184:
181:
164:
145:
143:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
273:DanielRigal
204:DanielRigal
151:DanielRigal
233:notability
172:guidelines
324:. Etc.
138:View log
311:MacUser
229:soapbox
217:Comment
105:protect
100:history
52:MBisanz
326:JulesH
242:hoesss
185:hoesss
133:delete
109:delete
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
330:talk
322:here
318:here
314:here
300:Keep
277:talk
262:Note
225:Keep
208:talk
165:Keep
155:talk
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
46:keep
289:Mgm
268:.
221:AFD
176:AFD
332:)
279:)
210:)
157:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
48:.
328:(
291:|
275:(
271:—
245:S
239:S
206:(
188:S
182:S
153:(
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.